Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Considering the time and digital ink that has been spilled, I will join in a call for an electronic meeting.  This is the second time this has been proposed; let's have a full consideration and reach a decision.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Elizabeth on reflection I think there are some flaws here.  I was getting ready to email my state chairs about whether or not to co-sponsor at a minimum but there is not enough information.  That section of the Bylaws is "for cause."    I know what my reasons are but they are not everyone's, and I would not put my name to something that might affirm something I do not (such supporting the current state of consent laws or fixing the LNC on a position within that contentious subject on which Libertarians disagree).  My concerns are behaviour and judgment.

I also think this too weighty for an email.

IMHO a meeting should be called.  And the motion IMHO is defective without the cause.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:19 PM, <trent...@lp.org> wrote:

On 2018-01-14 14:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I find it very sad that a colleague has brought us to this place with
his repeated utter lack of judgment.

I do not have my requisite Region 1 support at this time - Region 1 in
the past had no use for National and I worked my ass to change that.
Thanks to the incredibly destructive acts of our VC that work is
crumbling.

If it were solely up to me I would co-sponsor and vote yes.  But I am
a representative.

God help me, if I were ever this utterly destructive to an
organization that I would realize this isn’t about me and my
edgelordiness and step down.

Despite the opinion of others or the narrative put forth by Arvin, for
me, this isn’t some moderate squeamishness about Principles.  I hold
them - and though I think his understanding of how they apply to young
people is shallow- that isn’t the issue.  It is conduct and behavior
repeatedly unbecoming a leader.  It is not just this incident, it is a
repeated pattern and refusal to be able to work on a shared vision
that requires utter selfishness to be put aside.

Things move slow in Region 1 and I don’t even expect full answers in
this short time frame.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 11:54 AM Caryn Ann Harlos
<caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:12 AM <steven....@lp.org> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Coming from a State which has been targeted due to individuals
within
and experienced considerable flack for years despite the great
work we
have accomplished, my advice to this body is to not give in to the
lynch
mobs demands, as I do not believe our policies even give us an
avenue to
act, but instead to encourage those who want to change party
leadership
to participate in the 2018 Libertarian National Convention and
elect the
leadership they would like to see in charge. The leadership is a
reflection of the memberships will, if the membership wills to see
a
regime change that is their right, and the most effective way of
carrying that out is to book accommodations to be at the
convention of
the greatest political party in the United States of America and
be a
part of crafting the future of US politics and culture. That
should be
our only response, it is also the most genuine and effective way
for
anyone who wants leadership change to achieve it. Turning our
muzzles at
each other is not the answer and quite frankly our bylaws do not
allow
it (to my knowledge), and even if it did I would not recommend it.
We
must stay united and move business forward until convention,
encourage
participation in the 2018 convention, and stick to our mission.
Everything is else will end up in futility and that is not what
this
body wants.

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Rep Alternate

Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
"Those without power cannot defend freedom"

On 2018-01-14 10:13 AM, Patrick McKnight wrote:

Thank you Elizabeth. I will co-sponsor this motion.

Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep
Chair, NJLP

On Jan 14, 2018 9:17 AM, "Daniel Hayes" <daniel...@lp.org>

wrote:

The reality is that people choose to quit.  Arvin doesn’t

make

them quit. Personal responsibility and all.  He sure is

encouraging

the hell out of them though.

I sure wish those 50 people got this pissed off at Ohio State
Government.  It probably would have save us $100,000

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 14, 2018, at 8:07 AM, Dustin Nanna <dustin...@lp.org>
wrote:

The possibility and reality that he HAS made people quit is why

I

support this motion. That and the 50 or so Ohio members who are
completely disgusted.

Dustin Nanna
LNC Region 3 Alternate

Vice Chair/Deputy Communications Director
Libertarian Party of Ohio

(740) 816-9805 [1]

On Jan 14, 2018 9:05 AM, Dustin Nanna <dustin...@lp.org>

wrote:

Motion, not amendment. Typo

Dustin Nanna
LNC Region 3 Alternate

Vice Chair/Deputy Communications Director
Libertarian Party of Ohio

(740) 816-9805 [1]

On Jan 14, 2018 9:04 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@lp.org>

wrote:

In Louisiana, we have been through some legendary infighting.
We’ve seen the wear and tear it puts on people and the
organization.

We had a SCC meeting yesterday and I brought the subject of
Arvin’s latest statement up and asked if we wanted to create

a

response.  The “No” was palpable.  We discussed it further

and

everybody seemed to think that with the convention 5 1/2 months
away, allowing the delegates to handle it by not voting for

Arvin if

he runs again was the way it should be handled.

I suspect that after a 3 year period of grievances and attempts

to

remove people we maybe have a different perspective than others

do.

What we learned the hard way was the infighting/attempts at
discipline was probably much more destructive than anything

anybody

actually did.

I see a LOT of opportunistic and hypocritical behavior going on
relative to Arvin.  I find those people whipping up the mob to

be

the bigger problem.  I think a lot of it likely violates the LP
“Pledge”.  Attempting to use “force” for political

gain.  I

don’t mean people don’t have a right to be upset. I just

find it

curious that people that seem to think everyone should have a
platform coming out against Arvin, or groups that advocate

against

age of consent laws doing the same.

I am also disturbed but not surprised by the lynch mob calling

Arvin

a pedophile/pro-pedophile when he has very clearly stated he
definitively opposes pedophilia. This more so applies to people

that

know the distinctions.

All that said, I am bothered by what seems to be Arvin’s

desire

to “purge” the party of the impure.  The possibility that

he is

trying to get people to quit is the bigger issue.

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

Daniel Hayes

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 14, 2018, at 7:28 AM, David Demarest

<david.d...@lp.org>

wrote:

The first stone has been cast.

This motion is not about ideology. It is about the crass

politics of

avoiding scaring voters in order to get elected to top-down
authoritarian positions and hiding the dictates of one's

conscience

'between the sheets' instead courageously proclaiming one's
convictions 'on the streets'.

This motion will sort out those who have political, ideological

and

moral courage. We will soon see whether the LNC chooses to
differentiate the Libertarian Party from the Republican and
Democratic parties. The future of the LP could be in the

balance.

I will expressly NOT co-sponsor this motion. If it comes to a

vote,

I will proudly, publicly, and emphatically vote "NO"!

Who among you is willing to cast the second stone?

Thoughts?

~David Pratt Demarest

On Jan 14, 2018 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
<elizabet...@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-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]



Links:
------
[1] tel:(740)%20816-9805
[2] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

If I could co-sponsor, I absolutely would. I've been contacted by more constituents about this issue than any other issue since I started this job. Thank you for putting this forward.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

"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."

Are you co-sponsoring the email ballot or joining in the call for an
electronic meeting?

"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."

I agree with this interpretation that your co-sponsorship of a motion
for an email ballot would not prevent you from speaking against the
motion in the email ballot during debate.

-Nick

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Both, whichever gets the requisite number.

Joshua A. Katz

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist the chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will not address the parliamentary question.

However, I wanted to second this:

This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair play.  We need to stop that culture.  Now.

This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@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.an...@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.an...@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.an...@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.an...@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).

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed to, to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can happen to the Party.

But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating for a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back up than if they are resolved, one way or the other.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@lp.org> wrote:

But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those angling for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t stop there. THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it won’t stop there.

In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking about revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our original conversation and he said this:

“ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating offenses with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them from a position of influence.”

But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules and arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two years.. errr..

This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick, including in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed), then they will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about what Arvin actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because it’s thirst is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for radicals other than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new saviors/overlords of the Party.  

Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has pointed out this hypocrisy.

Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.

Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and those that took his head)? Who will start the purge?

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article that came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of one faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is from that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.

No. Bueno.

All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.

-Caryn Ann

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

If an electronic meeting is called, it will be announced and public.

If a member of the body during the meeting feels it appropriate to go
into executive session, they can make the appropriate motion at that
time and the body will determine whether to go into executive session.

-Nick

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:
> Would such a meeting have to be in secret session?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Hi all -

Just to make sure people know my view on the issue that Caryn Ann brought up: I do consider forcing others to pay for your kids to be a nonconsensual act, completely morally unjustifiable.

To put it in degree perspective:

1. It is done to a stranger.

2. There is no hint of consent.

3. There is often direct, vocal opposition.

4. The act is backed up with very real threats of force, including the threat of being locked in a rape cage by the state if you don't comply. Said rape cages are known for first degree, not statutory, rape.

-Arvin

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Hmm I manage to condemn the state every day without making people into mere digits on an tax spending worksheet.

The Cold Equations is a fantastic short story.  But terrible politics,

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Oh the courage to say a 14 year old girl is better to be impregnated by potential perv with a good job than a fellow young innocent fumbling his way through a foolish act.

Much brave.  Many whistle.  Wow.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM David Demarest <david.d...@lp.org> wrote:

Well, let's see. Arvin has committed no crime, no violation of the SoP or bylaws and has not deserted to the enemy. His is being tried in public by some who think he has violated their personal moral code but primarily by those who are self-proclaimed political-correctness hypocrites who think it perfectly okay to misrepresent their personal dictates of conscience to achieve political goals, namely to avoid losing votes, a bad case of top-down get-elected-itis.

This reminds me of McCarthyism but in reverse, persecution for being too Libertarian and risking scaring away voters, most of who could care less about Arvin. If you think carefully about it, Arvin is a whistle blower on those who are evading their responsibility to properly handle government-imposed moral dilemmas. Yes, indeedy, Arvin has made us very uncomfortable, and rightly so, for which we are persecuting him. Does the LNC want to achieve a reputation of punishing outspoken whistle blowers?

Arvin was elected by convention delegates, not by the LNC. This motion usurps the power of the delegates, all in the name of bowing to LNC internal fearmongering, at best. We need to demonstrate our courage and do things the right way, not the lynch-mob way.

On Jan 16, 2018 5:01 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@lp.org> wrote:

And say we suspend/remove him.  He will still be the Libertarian Senate Candidate for Maryland.  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded. That ship has sailed as the paperwork is filed with the Maryland Secretary of State.

   Arvin’s not going to magically shut up if he gets suspended from the LNC.  He likely will see a greater need to “teach everyone what Libertarianism really is”.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

What solutions?  A resolution that satisfied no one and only let it happen again?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM David Demarest <david.d...@lp.org> wrote:

Tough decision and it will only get tougher if it goes to a vote that will result in perhaps irreparable repercussions to all on both sides of the issue. Not much happened last year when it died on the vine with no co-sponsors and gave everyone a chance to step back from the nuclear option abyss and saner minds space to work on solutions.

On Jan 16, 2018 4:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

I’m saying it’s interesting when this is brought up as a radical issue (not in this Body) yet the fact that the LNC member who might be one of the most visible radicals who in this case is the primary antagonist is missing from the narrative. 

Because it’s not as simple as that.

We don’t need enemies.  We do it to ourselves.

-Caryn Ann 

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed to, to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can happen to the Party.

But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating for a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back up than if they are resolved, one way or the other.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@lp.org> wrote:

But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those angling for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t stop there. THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it won’t stop there.

In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking about revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our original conversation and he said this:

“ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating offenses with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them from a position of influence.”

But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules and arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two years.. errr..

This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick, including in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed), then they will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about what Arvin actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because it’s thirst is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for radicals other than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new saviors/overlords of the Party.  

Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has pointed out this hypocrisy.

Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.

Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and those that took his head)? Who will start the purge?

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article that came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of one faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is from that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.

No. Bueno.

All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist the chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will not address the parliamentary question.

However, I wanted to second this:

This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair play.  We need to stop that culture.  Now.

This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.

Joshua A. Katz

--

Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Dear Ms. Harlos,

There is a range of views on statutory rape. Your view, which considers it essentially identical to first degree rape, is not one I agree with, or one that the law agrees with, or one that historical precedent agrees with. My view, that it is a matter for family and not the state, is also not one that the law agrees with. So let's settle this like good anarchists and use the state as a benchmark.

I'll use your state as a benchmark (assuming you still live in Colorado), but apply the view that taxation is theft.

To consider the currrent item under discussion, I'll use your state as a benchmark. 12 years of public school involves taking $120,000 from others, often against their direct wishes, over their objections, without their consent. Morally,  that's the equivalent of theft of that amount, which in Colorado carries jail of up to 12 years and a $750,000 fine. 

In colorado, an adult who has sex with a 15 year old faces no penalty.

An adult who has sex with a 14 year old to whom her or she is marrried faces no penalty.

An adult who has non-marital sex with a 14 year old faces 1-12 years in prison, and a $2000 to $500,000 fine.

An adult who uses force, whether married or otherwise, faces first degree (not statutory) rape charges.

-Arvin

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

So...... to hell with the 14 year old.  It’s all about me and that’s how I should present it to the world.

Is it better she just voluntarily committ suicide?  That’s real cheap.

I am as opposed to theft as you are.  It doesn’t mean that I view everything as a math equation and think it just fine to say it’s better something horrible happens to someone else.

How about humans are not balance sheets?  That both SUCK and don’t need to be quantified.

How many rapes equal one theft?  How about theft of a penny? What happened to proportionality?  Or being opposed to the transfer of misery.  WTAF.

See how ruthless that is?

THAT IS NOT OUR MESSAGE.  That might be a ruthless objectivism but the LP split from that in its first years.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I strongly believe the entire chain of emails on this topic would be resolved in 10 minutes or so at a synchronous meeting, so I'd urge anyone who wants to see this issue resolved while taking mercy on our poor email servers to join the call for an electronic meeting.  (On another note, maybe either the LNC or the bylaws committee should consider making an arrangement whereby email ballots can be amended without massive delay.  I'm not sure the LNC can, but it may be possible.  As you know, I am of the opinion that debates between binary, clear alternatives are better, and can be stacked to appropriately offer more than 2 options.)

Joshua A. Katz

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

To answer Alicia’s question.  

The issue under dispute is whether or not the individual *can* consent.  Arvin did not argue for proxy consent he argued for certain roles as initial fact/finders.  If the disputed item is whether the individual is competent, it would be circular to simply rely on the individual saying they were since an incompetent person often does not know it.  That’s part of incompetence.

This is very analogous to the theory of textual canon in Protestantism.  The Church does not decide which texts are inspired, it discovers them.

To conflate those distinctions is to misrepresent what a common non-state view in the Party are saying.  I’m not making any claim on its merit in this discussion, I am saying this Body is overstepping it’s bounds to make the particular state view of some the official Party position and use that to discipline someone.

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:04 AM Sam Goldstein <sam.go...@lp.org> wrote:

David,

The EC passed the TN ballot encumbrance based on the plan presented by Wes for tiered release of LNC monies per TN's ability to comply with the plan.  This plan was in line with the budget proviso we passed requiring states to participate in their own ballot access process.  We also discussed a request from MA that was postponed to a future EC meeting pending further review.

---

Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2018-01-17 06:06, David Demarest wrote:

Disregarding the proposed motion, the last few posts appear to be taking this discussion of a difficult social issue in the healthier direction of an actual examination of the sensitive details that government legal misadventures have muddied the waters on and obscured. This is where we should have been in the first place before the opportunistic pyrotechnics ensued.

 

As to the proposed motion under construction, Ms. Mattson's reference to a circular firing squad is highly appropriate. This circus is self-defeating and self-destructive. Upon reconsideration, I will not legitimatize this lynch-mob usurpation of delegate responsibilities any further by participating in a vote.

 

What's next? I had to drop before the end of the Executive Committee ballot access encumbrance conference call for another meeting. What was the outcome of the vote on the Tennessee ballot access initiative?

On Jan 17, 2018 4:18 AM, Alicia Mattson <alicia....@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.an...@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.an...@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.an...@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 <elizabet...@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....@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 <ch...@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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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

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

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

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

Since you start off mischaracterizing what I said, I decline.

Further none of that is relevant to the point at hand.  I think Alicia pretty much took care of that cost benefit (to you) fallacy.

And I decline to use the state as a benchmark for anything. 

-Caryn Ann 

-Caryn Ann 

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed to, to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can happen to the Party.

But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating for a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back up than if they are resolved, one way or the other.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@lp.org> wrote:

But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those angling for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t stop there. THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it won’t stop there.

In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking about revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our original conversation and he said this:

“ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating offenses with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them from a position of influence.”

But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules and arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two years.. errr..

This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick, including in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed), then they will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about what Arvin actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because it’s thirst is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for radicals other than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new saviors/overlords of the Party.  

Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has pointed out this hypocrisy.

Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.

Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and those that took his head)? Who will start the purge?

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article that came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of one faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is from that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.

No. Bueno.

All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist the chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will not address the parliamentary question.

However, I wanted to second this:

This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair play.  We need to stop that culture.  Now.

This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.

Joshua A. Katz

--

Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

--

Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
Vote...@gmail.com
(301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

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 Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree with Alicia, but I do not think the quoted section here says
anything about it.

Joshua A. Katz


On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>
wrote:

> I will take a closer look at that section, but on first read, I don't
> think I agree that excludes what I said.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel...@lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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][2]alicia....@lp.org>

> <[2][3]ch...@lp.org>

> <[4][5]caryn.an...@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
>

> >>> <[6][7]caryn.an...@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][8]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A

> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>

> >>>>>>> [11][12]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>>>>>> [12][13]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> >>>>>>> [13][14]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>>>>> [14][15]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> >>>>>> [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > [16][17]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> > [17][18]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [18][19]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> [19][20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [20][21]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> [21][22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[23]alicia....@lp.org
> 2. mailto:[24]ch...@lp.org
> 3. mailto:[25]caryn.an...@lp.org
> 4. mailto:[26]caryn.an...@lp.org
> 5. mailto:[27]caryn.an...@lp.org
> 6. mailto:[28]caryn.an...@lp.org
> 7. [29]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> 8. mailto:[30]caryn.an...@lp.org
> 9. mailto:[31]planning...@gmail.com
> 10. mailto:[32]elizabet...@lp.org
> 11. [33]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 12. mailto:[34]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 13. [35]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 14. mailto:[36]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 15. [37]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 16. mailto:[38]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 17. [39]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 18. mailto:[40]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 19. [41]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 20. mailto:[42]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 21. [43]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [44]Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> [45]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:daniel...@lp.org
> 2. mailto:alicia....@lp.org
> 3. mailto:ch...@lp.org
> 4. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 5. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 6. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 7. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 8. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> 9. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 10. mailto:planning...@gmail.com
> 11. mailto:elizabet...@lp.org
> 12. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 13. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 14. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 15. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 17. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 18. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 19. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 21. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 23. mailto:alicia....@lp.org
> 24. mailto:ch...@lp.org
> 25. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 26. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 27. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 28. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 29. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> 30. mailto:caryn.an...@lp.org
> 31. mailto:planning...@gmail.com
> 32. mailto:elizabet...@lp.org
> 33. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 34. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 35. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 36. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 37. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 38. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 39. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 40. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 41. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 42. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 43. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 44. mailto:Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
> 45. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business