[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra

Whitney Bilyeu whitneycb76 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 29 21:25:59 EST 2018


Yes.

Whitney Bilyeu


On Jan 29, 2018 5:18 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   ;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on.  He has presented
   Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way.  It doesn't claim all of
   his ideas were.  It says the one fact that we do have an authority to
   say.  That is why I say anything else is a purity test.  In all
   directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or
   whatever the factions de jeur are.  This was never a PM issue and the
   complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole effort.  My
   yes votes remain.  I believe in them, and it is my position.

   On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Alicia--
   ==   I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
   this,
      as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend
   to
      focus on and accomplish.==
   I'm done as well.  But you deserve the respect of a response.
   == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
   are
      unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.==
   I don't have a pendulum.  I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME
   PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations
   can determine.
   ==  Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
   explain
      their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
   fair.===
   It is my judgment.  I am here to do that and report to my constituents
   who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind.
   I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment
   is pretty on point here.  Additional data can change it.  It is not
   presumptuous, it is my job.  One constant refrain from me from day one
   is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1.
   ==   A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option
   of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).===
   I didn't say it was.  I know you want at least that.  You know I want
   at least that.  But that is just you and me.  There is not a majority
   that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious.  And
   disappointing.
   == It is
      the rejection of this particular wording.   This motion tends to
   broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas.
   Even you, in today's postings, say you think some
      were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
   represent a purity test...?===
   It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE.  I have
   some non-libertarian ideas according to many.  That is not this body's
   concern.  But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light,
   that is this body's concern.  I am pro-life.  The Party is not.  I can
   present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be
   concerned about that.  And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be
   due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style.
   He neglected to add very important nuance.  Does he deny that nuance?
   Or was he just a terrible communicator?  I don't know, and we can't
   know.  And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of
   truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people
   that it is inappropriate for a leader.  It is like a a racist bragging
   about his "white only" sign.  Is that anti-libertarian qua
   libertarian?  No, he has the right to do that. But it is
   anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person.  Is it
   unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone
   else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it?  No.
   But it is a hard callous cold brutalism.  The minute we start trying to
   parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests.
   There is only ONE thing we know for certain.  That he HAS presented
   Libertarian ideas in a foul way.  Separating the two is up to delegates
   in Platform.  Not us.
   ==  There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
   LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension
   or censure, or neither.  To characterize this email ballot as being the
      end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you
   to  abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
   options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
   spite
      your face.==
   Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs.  They ask me to.  They
   elected me for my advise.  They often disagree.  But it is my duty to
   them to tell them what MY judgment is.  But I FOLLOW theirs.
   This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this
   Body will do nothing.  I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a
   lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I
   prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet
   mastering of this body.  He is telling us to jump and we are saying how
   high.  I am tired of it.  He is reveling in this jerking us around and
   I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that.
   You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen.
   Can I be wrong?  Obviously.  I thought the regional chairs would not
   support suspension.  And they did.  But this is coming up on a month
   with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the
   affiliates need to take more control.

   On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson
   <[2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:

        Caryn Ann,
        I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
     this,
        as over in the real world there are productive things that I
     intend to
        focus on and accomplish.
        However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
     are
        unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.
        Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
     explain
        their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
     fair.
        A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of
        censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).
     It is
        the rejection of this particular wording.
        This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having
     been
        libertarian ideas.  Even you, in today's postings, say you think
     some
        were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
     represent
        a purity test...?
        There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
     LNC
        has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or
        censure, or neither.  To characterize this email ballot as being
     the
        end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to
        abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
     options
        will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
     spite
        your face.
        -Alicia

      On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
      <[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
           This is what I sent to my region one chairs:
           Hello everyone.  AZ has a new state chair but as he has not
   been
        privy
           to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this
        because
           it is nearly its end.  For the record AZ passed a resolution
   this
           weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia
   which
           obviously is in direct response to this situation.
           The censure motion will fail.  Nearly all the yes's have
   changed
        their
           vote to no.  Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same
   -
        you
           can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted
        on the
           state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an
        asshole
           works.  I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for.  I
        suspect
           that is not what many of you signed up for either.
           My vote remains yes.  The no votes now are for various reasons.
        I
           suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from
        counsel
           from pivotal.  Others do not like the wording of the censure
        motion as
           it does not take a side in the age of consent debate.  Some
   want
        to
           claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian.  Others
   think
        some
           were and some were not (I fall in that camp).  But what this
   has
           devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to
   interpret
        the
           Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological
   struggle.
           Which is exactly what Arvin wanted.  To make this into an
        ideological
           dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and
        proper
           conduct of leaders.  I am deeply saddened.  The vast majority
   of
        region
           1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what
        he
           said.  Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and -
        that is
           nakedly a factional issue.
           The 2/2 meeting will be a farce.  Nothing acceptable to Region
   1
        will
           come out of it.  I will attend and argue as that is my
        instructions,
           but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my
           instructions.
           My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand.
        Issue
           your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the
   LNC
        is
           not capable of doing anything about this situation.  I say this
        with
           regret.
           I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute
   protest
        and
           for Region 1 to take its own stand.  We bow down to the
   national
        party
           too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.

           On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][4]erin.adams at lp.org>
   wrote:
             I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion
        to
             censure should have been made some time ago imo
             On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
             So in short.  Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act
        horribly
             and
                we have zero backbone to handle it.  He breached his
        fiduciary
             duty HE
                COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff
   could
        rise
             to
                the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke
        their
             legs.
                My opinion.
                I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.
                I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way
        works.  I
             do it
                every day.  IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an
             unempathic
                edgelord.
                And we bought it hook line and sinker.
                Literally shaking my head.
                On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos

              <[1][2][3][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
              I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional
      Chairs
           want.
              I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate
      those
           to my
              state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.
              However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just
   about
           this
              incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this
           Party has
              argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here
   in
           this
              body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the
   line
           is
              drawn and not the delegates.
              This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s
           reckless
              behaviour and more and factional jockeying.
              It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where
   people
           were
              assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not
      changed
           - so
              trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an
   arbitrary
           state
              law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing
   a
           hand.
              IMHO.
              Which is a shame.  Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable
   but
           it’s
              obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.
              I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.
              The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to
      have
           a
              Libertarian Purity test.
              Which I find so ironic.
              On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein

               <[2][3][4][6]sam.goldstein at lp.org>
                  wrote:
                    Please change my vote to "No" on this motion.  I tend
     to
          agree
               with
                    those who have pointed out that the wording of the
     censure
               seems to
                    imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and
     to
          the LP.
                    ---
                    Sam Goldstein
                    Libertarian National Committee
                    [4]317-850-0726 Cell
                    On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:
                    > I have to vote no.
                    >    As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is
          warranted
               here,
                    > however, I
                    >    cannot vote for a motion which claims the
     outrageous
               comments
                    which
                    >    were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas",
     and
          that
               our
                    leaders
                    >    and candidates are trying to win hearts and
     minds for
               those
                    ideas
                    >    espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a
     different
          way.
                    >    -Alicia
                    >
                    >    On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
                    >    <[1][3][5][5][7]agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
                    >
                    >    We have an electronic mail ballot.
                    >    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by
     January 30,
          2018
               at
                    >    11:59:59pm Pacific time.
                    >
                    >    Co-Sponsors:  Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
                    >    Motion:  to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra
     for
               repeated
                    public
                    >    comments which have presented libertarian ideas
     in an
                    inflammatory
                    > and
                    >    sometimes offensive manner not conducive to
          Libertarian
               leaders
                    and
                    >    candidates for public office winning hearts and
     minds
          for
               those
                    > ideas.
                    >    -Alicia
                    >
                    > References
                    >
                    >    1. mailto:[4][6][6][8]agmattson at gmail.com
               References
                  1. mailto:[7][7][9]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  2. mailto:[8][8][10]sam.goldstein at lp.org
                  3. mailto:[9][9][11]agmattson at gmail.com
                  4. mailto:[10][10][12]agmattson at gmail.com
          References
             1. mailto:[11][13]erin.adams at lp.org
             2. mailto:[12][14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             3. mailto:[13][15]sam.goldstein at lp.org
             4. tel:[14]317-850-0726
             5. mailto:[15][16]agmattson at gmail.com
             6. mailto:[16][17]agmattson at gmail.com
             7. mailto:[17][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             8. mailto:[18][19]sam.goldstein at lp.org
             9. mailto:[19][20]agmattson at gmail.com
            10. mailto:[20][21]agmattson at gmail.com
     References
        1. mailto:[22]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto:[23]erin.adams at lp.org
        3. mailto:[24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        4. mailto:[25]sam.goldstein at lp.org
        5. mailto:[26]agmattson at gmail.com
        6. mailto:[27]agmattson at gmail.com
        7. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        8. mailto:[29]sam.goldstein at lp.org
        9. mailto:[30]agmattson at gmail.com
       10. mailto:[31]agmattson at gmail.com
       11. mailto:[32]erin.adams at lp.org
       12. mailto:[33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       13. mailto:[34]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       14. tel:[35]317-850-0726
       15. mailto:[36]agmattson at gmail.com
       16. mailto:[37]agmattson at gmail.com
       17. mailto:[38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       18. mailto:[39]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       19. mailto:[40]agmattson at gmail.com
       20. mailto:[41]agmattson at gmail.com

References

   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
   3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   4. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
   5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   6. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
   7. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
   8. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
   9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  10. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  11. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  12. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  13. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  15. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  16. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  17. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  19. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  20. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  21. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  22. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  23. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  25. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  26. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  27. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  29. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  30. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  31. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  32. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  34. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  35. tel:317-850-0726
  36. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  37. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  39. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  40. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  41. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
   Yes.
   Whitney Bilyeu
   On Jan 29, 2018 5:18 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos"
   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

        ;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on.  He has
     presented
        Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way.  It doesn't claim
     all of
        his ideas were.  It says the one fact that we do have an
     authority to
        say.  That is why I say anything else is a purity test.  In all
        directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or
        whatever the factions de jeur are.  This was never a PM issue and
     the
        complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole
     effort.  My
        yes votes remain.  I believe in them, and it is my position.

      On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
      <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
      Alicia--
      ==   I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue
   about
      this,
         as over in the real world there are productive things that I
   intend
      to
         focus on and accomplish.==
      I'm done as well.  But you deserve the respect of a response.
      == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
      are
         unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.==
      I don't have a pendulum.  I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME
      PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations
      can determine.
      ==  Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
      explain
         their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
      fair.===
      It is my judgment.  I am here to do that and report to my
   constituents
      who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my
   mind.
      I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my
   judgment
      is pretty on point here.  Additional data can change it.  It is not
      presumptuous, it is my job.  One constant refrain from me from day
   one
      is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1.
      ==   A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option
      of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).===
      I didn't say it was.  I know you want at least that.  You know I
   want
      at least that.  But that is just you and me.  There is not a
   majority
      that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious.  And
      disappointing.
      == It is
         the rejection of this particular wording.   This motion tends to
      broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas.
      Even you, in today's postings, say you think some
         were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
      represent a purity test...?===
      It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE.  I
   have
      some non-libertarian ideas according to many.  That is not this
   body's
      concern.  But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad
   light,
      that is this body's concern.  I am pro-life.  The Party is not.  I
   can
      present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be
      concerned about that.  And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could
   be
      due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the
   style.
      He neglected to add very important nuance.  Does he deny that
   nuance?
      Or was he just a terrible communicator?  I don't know, and we can't
      know.  And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain
   of
      truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other
   people
      that it is inappropriate for a leader.  It is like a a racist
   bragging
      about his "white only" sign.  Is that anti-libertarian qua
      libertarian?  No, he has the right to do that. But it is
      anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person.  Is it
      unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to
   someone
      else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it?
   No.
      But it is a hard callous cold brutalism.  The minute we start trying
   to
      parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests.
      There is only ONE thing we know for certain.  That he HAS presented
      Libertarian ideas in a foul way.  Separating the two is up to
   delegates
      in Platform.  Not us.
      ==  There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
      LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension
      or censure, or neither.  To characterize this email ballot as being
   the
         end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you
      to  abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
      options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose
   to
      spite
         your face.==
      Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs.  They ask me to.  They
      elected me for my advise.  They often disagree.  But it is my duty
   to
      them to tell them what MY judgment is.  But I FOLLOW theirs.
      This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that
   this
      Body will do nothing.  I am all for symbolic stands and am fine
   being a
      lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I
      prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet
      mastering of this body.  He is telling us to jump and we are saying
   how
      high.  I am tired of it.  He is reveling in this jerking us around
   and
      I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that.
      You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen.
      Can I be wrong?  Obviously.  I thought the regional chairs would not
      support suspension.  And they did.  But this is coming up on a month
      with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the
      affiliates need to take more control.
      On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson

      <[2][3]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
           Caryn Ann,
           I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue
   about
        this,
           as over in the real world there are productive things that I
        intend to
           focus on and accomplish.
           However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think
   you
        are
           unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.
           Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
        explain
           their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is
   not
        fair.
           A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option
   of
           censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).
        It is
           the rejection of this particular wording.
           This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as
   having
        been
           libertarian ideas.  Even you, in today's postings, say you
   think
        some
           were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
        represent
           a purity test...?
           There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time
   the
        LNC
           has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension
   or
           censure, or neither.  To characterize this email ballot as
   being
        the
           end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you
   to
           abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
        options
           will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
        spite
           your face.
           -Alicia
         On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos

         <[1][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
              This is what I sent to my region one chairs:
              Hello everyone.  AZ has a new state chair but as he has not
      been
           privy
              to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on
   this
           because
              it is nearly its end.  For the record AZ passed a resolution
      this
              weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia
      which
              obviously is in direct response to this situation.
              The censure motion will fail.  Nearly all the yes's have
      changed
           their
              vote to no.  Arvin posted a defense which was more of the
   same
      -
           you
              can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he
   posted
           on the
              state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an
           asshole
              works.  I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up
   for.  I
           suspect
              that is not what many of you signed up for either.
              My vote remains yes.  The no votes now are for various
   reasons.
           I
              suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from
           counsel
              from pivotal.  Others do not like the wording of the censure
           motion as
              it does not take a side in the age of consent debate.  Some
      want
           to
              claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian.  Others
      think
           some
              were and some were not (I fall in that camp).  But what this
      has
              devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to
      interpret
           the
              Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological
      struggle.
              Which is exactly what Arvin wanted.  To make this into an
           ideological
              dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and
           proper
              conduct of leaders.  I am deeply saddened.  The vast
   majority
      of
           region
              1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of
   what
           he
              said.  Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and
   -
           that is
              nakedly a factional issue.
              The 2/2 meeting will be a farce.  Nothing acceptable to
   Region
      1
           will
              come out of it.  I will attend and argue as that is my
           instructions,
              but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change
   my
              instructions.
              My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you
   stand.
           Issue
              your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what
   the
      LNC
           is
              not capable of doing anything about this situation.  I say
   this
           with
              regret.
              I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute
      protest
           and
              for Region 1 to take its own stand.  We bow down to the
      national
           party
              too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.

                On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM,
     <[1][2][4][5]erin.adams at lp.org>

      wrote:
                I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A
   motion
           to
                censure should have been made some time ago imo
                On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
                So in short.  Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act
           horribly
                and
                   we have zero backbone to handle it.  He breached his
           fiduciary
                duty HE
                   COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff
      could
           rise
                to
                   the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke
           their
                legs.
                   My opinion.
                   I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.
                   I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way
           works.  I
                do it
                   every day.  IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an
                unempathic
                   edgelord.
                   And we bought it hook line and sinker.
                   Literally shaking my head.
                   On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos

                 <[1][2][3][5][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
                 I maintain my position as what the majority of my
   regional
         Chairs
              want.
                 I hear the concerns about the wording and will
   communicate
         those
              to my
                 state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.
                 However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just
      about
              this
                 incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue
   this
              Party has
                 argued about since the beginning and I see politicking
   here
      in
              this
                 body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when
   the
      line
              is
                 drawn and not the delegates.
                 This it seems to me that this has become less about
   Arvin’s
              reckless
                 behaviour and more and factional jockeying.
                 It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where
      people
              were
                 assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not
         changed
              - so
                 trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an
      arbitrary
              state
                 law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is
   showing
      a
              hand.
                 IMHO.
                 Which is a shame.  Because Arvin’s behaviour was
   abominable
      but
              it’s
                 obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.
                 I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.
                 The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here
   to
         have
              a
                 Libertarian Purity test.
                 Which I find so ironic.
                 On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein

                    <[2][3][4][6][7]sam.goldstein at lp.org>

                     wrote:
                       Please change my vote to "No" on this motion.  I
   tend
        to
             agree
                  with
                       those who have pointed out that the wording of the
        censure
                  seems to
                       imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me
   and
        to
             the LP.
                       ---
                       Sam Goldstein
                       Libertarian National Committee
                       [4]317-850-0726 Cell
                       On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:
                       > I have to vote no.
                       >    As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is
             warranted
                  here,
                       > however, I
                       >    cannot vote for a motion which claims the
        outrageous
                  comments
                       which
                       >    were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian
   ideas",
        and
             that
                  our
                       leaders
                       >    and candidates are trying to win hearts and
        minds for
                  those
                       ideas
                       >    espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a
        different
             way.
                       >    -Alicia
                       >
                       >    On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia
   Mattson

                       >    <[1][3][5][5][7][8]agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
                       >
                       >    We have an electronic mail ballot.
                       >    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by
        January 30,
             2018
                  at
                       >    11:59:59pm Pacific time.
                       >
                       >    Co-Sponsors:  Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
                       >    Motion:  to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra
        for
                  repeated
                       public
                       >    comments which have presented libertarian
   ideas
        in an
                       inflammatory
                       > and
                       >    sometimes offensive manner not conducive to
             Libertarian
                  leaders
                       and
                       >    candidates for public office winning hearts
   and
        minds
             for
                  those
                       > ideas.
                       >    -Alicia
                       >
                       > References
                       >

                         >    1. mailto:[4][6][6][8][9]agmattson@
     gmail.com
                    References
                       1. mailto:[7][7][9][10]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                       2. mailto:[8][8][10][11]sam.goldstein at lp.org
                       3. mailto:[9][9][11][12]agmattson at gmail.com
                       4. mailto:[10][10][12][13]agmattson at gmail.com
               References
                  1. mailto:[11][13][14]erin.adams at lp.org
                  2. mailto:[12][14][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  3. mailto:[13][15][16]sam.goldstein at lp.org
                  4. tel:[14]317-850-0726
                  5. mailto:[15][16][17]agmattson at gmail.com
                  6. mailto:[16][17][18]agmattson at gmail.com
                  7. mailto:[17][18][19]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
                  8. mailto:[18][19][20]sam.goldstein at lp.org
                  9. mailto:[19][20][21]agmattson at gmail.com
                 10. mailto:[20][21][22]agmattson at gmail.com
          References
             1. mailto:[22][23]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             2. mailto:[23][24]erin.adams at lp.org
             3. mailto:[24][25]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             4. mailto:[25][26]sam.goldstein at lp.org
             5. mailto:[26][27]agmattson at gmail.com
             6. mailto:[27][28]agmattson at gmail.com
             7. mailto:[28][29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
             8. mailto:[29][30]sam.goldstein at lp.org
             9. mailto:[30][31]agmattson at gmail.com
            10. mailto:[31][32]agmattson at gmail.com
            11. mailto:[32][33]erin.adams at lp.org
            12. mailto:[33][34]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            13. mailto:[34][35]sam.goldstein at lp.org
            14. tel:[35]317-850-0726
            15. mailto:[36][36]agmattson at gmail.com
            16. mailto:[37][37]agmattson at gmail.com
            17. mailto:[38][38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
            18. mailto:[39][39]sam.goldstein at lp.org
            19. mailto:[40][40]agmattson at gmail.com
            20. mailto:[41][41]agmattson at gmail.com
     References
        1. mailto:[42]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto:[43]alicia.mattson at lp.org
        3. mailto:[44]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org

      4. mailto:[45]erin.adams at lp.org
      5. mailto:[46]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
      6. mailto:[47]sam.goldstein at lp.org

        7. mailto:[48]agmattson at gmail.com
        8. mailto:[49]agmattson at gmail.com
        9. mailto:[50]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       10. mailto:[51]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       11. mailto:[52]agmattson at gmail.com
       12. mailto:[53]agmattson at gmail.com
       13. mailto:[54]erin.adams at lp.org
       14. mailto:[55]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       15. mailto:[56]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       16. mailto:[57]agmattson at gmail.com
       17. mailto:[58]agmattson at gmail.com
       18. mailto:[59]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       19. mailto:[60]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       20. mailto:[61]agmattson at gmail.com
       21. mailto:[62]agmattson at gmail.com
       22. mailto:[63]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       23. mailto:[64]erin.adams at lp.org
       24. mailto:[65]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       25. mailto:[66]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       26. mailto:[67]agmattson at gmail.com
       27. mailto:[68]agmattson at gmail.com
       28. mailto:[69]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       29. mailto:[70]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       30. mailto:[71]agmattson at gmail.com
       31. mailto:[72]agmattson at gmail.com
       32. mailto:[73]erin.adams at lp.org
       33. mailto:[74]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       34. mailto:[75]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       35. tel:[76]317-850-0726
       36. mailto:[77]agmattson at gmail.com
       37. mailto:[78]agmattson at gmail.com
       38. mailto:[79]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
       39. mailto:[80]sam.goldstein at lp.org
       40. mailto:[81]agmattson at gmail.com
       41. mailto:[82]agmattson at gmail.com

References

   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   3. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
   4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   5. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
   6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   7. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
   8. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
   9. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  11. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  12. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  13. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  14. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  16. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  17. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  18. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  19. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  20. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  21. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  22. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  23. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  24. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  25. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  26. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  27. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  28. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  30. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  31. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  32. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  33. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  34. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  35. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  36. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  37. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  39. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  40. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  41. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  42. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  43. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
  44. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  45. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  46. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  47. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  48. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  49. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  50. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  51. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  52. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  53. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  54. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  55. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  56. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  57. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  58. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  59. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  60. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  61. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  62. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  63. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  64. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  66. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  67. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  68. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  69. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  70. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  71. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  72. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  73. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  74. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  75. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  76. tel:317-850-0726
  77. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  78. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  79. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  80. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
  81. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
  82. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list