January 2018 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

This week; social media; regular media
by Arvin Vohra 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

During the last week, I've had two major media interviews. The first was about Chelsea Manning. The second was about FISA. What about articles about my social media? All you've seen are hit pieces written by LP members, and those working for recent LP members turned GOP members. These aren't real news articles. For one, they haven't included any interviews with me. The more popular hit piece has bent the truth to the point of fiction, attacking both me and others in ways that are just false. Since I'm not going to fall for the trick of baiting the opponent to bring attention, I'm not going to say much more than that. Now let's say that the fears of the board did come true, and there was a 60 Minutes interview with me on this topic? What would that result be? A brief, polite, calm explanation of how alternative methods are better, aggressive plugs for major Libertarian ideas (ending welfare to improve dignity and self reliance, ending government schools to improve education, ending social security so that people can invest in reliable retirement, ending foreign aid so that countries are financially sorced to sell sovereign territory, creating hundreds of new hong kong style micronations, bringing the troops home to rejoin their families, preventing physical damage and the psychological damage that comes from moral difficulties, see more at LP.org) Before you say, "Wait, that would be barely answering the question": no kidding. I love you guys, even when we disagree, and I answer about half of your direct and pointed questions. A media interview is basically just a time to plug our ideas, in my view and practice. Carla's Who's Driving training is helpful for understanding this approach. My biggest problem with the social media controversies of the last year: they didn't work. Yet. Would it have been bad to have the chair discussing freedom of religion on CNN after the satanic thing, using a minor controversy to jump to higher media? I was hoping that would go farther, and even did my best to add some gasoline to that fire. It didn't work, but we may have been close. Ditto with any of the "controversies" on my page. They got some minor reach, but not enough to catapult us to major media attention. I know many of you want to avoid media controversy at all costs. This is not a good strategy. Avoiding media controversy just means avoiding attention from the media, which we can then use. We can get "church bake sale" style media coverage by being polite, commonsense, and harmless. To take things to a higher level, to be not just in the media but to be the thing in the media that people watch, a little sensationalism doesn't hurt. Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian National Committee -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634 During the last week, I've had two major media interviews. The first was about Chelsea Manning. The second was about FISA. What about articles about my social media? All you've seen are hit pieces written by LP members, and those working for recent LP members turned GOP members. These aren't real news articles. For one, they haven't included any interviews with me. The more popular hit piece has bent the truth to the point of fiction, attacking both me and others in ways that are just false. Since I'm not going to fall for the trick of baiting the opponent to bring attention, I'm not going to say much more than that. Now let's say that the fears of the board did come true, and there was a 60 Minutes interview with me on this topic? What would that result be? A brief, polite, calm explanation of how alternative methods are better, aggressive plugs for major Libertarian ideas (ending welfare to improve dignity and self reliance, ending government schools to improve education, ending social security so that people can invest in reliable retirement, ending foreign aid so that countries are financially sorced to sell sovereign territory, creating hundreds of new hong kong style micronations, bringing the troops home to rejoin their families, preventing physical damage and the psychological damage that comes from moral difficulties, see more at LP.org) Before you say, "Wait, that would be barely answering the question": no kidding. I love you guys, even when we disagree, and I answer about half of your direct and pointed questions. A media interview is basically just a time to plug our ideas, in my view and practice. Carla's Who's Driving training is helpful for understanding this approach. My biggest problem with the social media controversies of the last year: they didn't work. Yet. Would it have been bad to have the chair discussing freedom of religion on CNN after the satanic thing, using a minor controversy to jump to higher media? I was hoping that would go farther, and even did my best to add some gasoline to that fire. It didn't work, but we may have been close. Ditto with any of the "controversies" on my page. They got some minor reach, but not enough to catapult us to major media attention. I know many of you want to avoid media controversy at all costs. This is not a good strategy. Avoiding media controversy just means avoiding attention from the media, which we can then use. We can get "church bake sale" style media coverage by being polite, commonsense, and harmless. To take things to a higher level, to be not just in the media but to be the thing in the media that people watch, a little sensationalism doesn't hurt. Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian National Committee -- Arvin Vohra [1]www.VoteVohra.com [2]VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634 References 1. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 2. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

1 0

Platform Committee Email List
by Caryn Ann Harlos 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

I think there may be an issue with our LP.org email addresses and the Platcomm list. I never received the invitation and neither did the CO representative - though he is using an lpcolorado email address. I would ask that personal contact be made with anyone who has not answered the roll call. I was just alerted to this tonight. The prior email said to expect the link, and then Arvin decided to entertain us, so I assumed it was delayed and expected it this weekend or early next week. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* I think there may be an issue with our LP.org email addresses and the Platcomm list. I never received the invitation and neither did the CO representative - though he is using an lpcolorado email address. I would ask that personal contact be made with anyone who has not answered the roll call. I was just alerted to this tonight. The prior email said to expect the link, and then Arvin decided to entertain us, so I assumed it was delayed and expected it this weekend or early next week. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft References 1. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

3 2

Alternative Motion to Censure
by Daniel Hayes 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

I put forth the following motion and seek co-sponsors. “Move 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.” Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone I put forth the following motion and seek co-sponsors. “Move 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.” Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone

6 9

Fwd: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
by Caryn Ann Harlos 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Copying this for the LNC list. I spoke briefly with Mr. Boman on social media. Regional Representatives should do the will of their Region, and Mr. Boman is not in my region. Regional Representatives are accountable to their state chairs as per our Bylaws unless the regional agreement says otherwise. I promised at my election to follow the procedure I am following and thus upon which I was elected. I do not betray my promises. Some points though need to be addressed. 1. There isn't a "poorly publicized meeting" as no meeting has been set. One cannot publicize something that is not scheduled. Our discussions are far from poorly publicized. Any member can read every single LNC discussion if they avail themselves of it. 2. One thing the LNC is not is operating under a cover of darkness. That is unwarranted hyperbole that is not cognizant of the tremendous transparency we do have compared to LNC subcommittees and other organizations. 3. No, Mr. Vohra was not elected on this agenda. He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone. That is not acceptable to me. 4. The Bylaws give this option. The Bylaws that were not changed last convention and represent the rules of this Body. The same Bylaws that delegates voted to give this Body the discretion to do. I will be campaigning for a change to have a direct right of recall but that does not exist right now, and thus, this is properly in our purview. 5. As far as diversity and "not them." I beg to differ. I am a radical anarchist. Just like Mr. Vohra. This has nothing to do with "not them" and factionalism for me. I await the final instruction from my Regional Chairs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scotty Boman <scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM Subject: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra To: "chair(a)lp.org" <chair(a)lp.org>, "vicechair(a)lp.org" <vicechair(a)lp.org>, " treasurer(a)lp.org" <treasurer(a)lp.org>, "secretary(a)lp.org" <secretary(a)lp.org>, "william.redpath(a)lp.org" <william.redpath(a)lp.org>, "sam.goldstein(a)lp.org" < sam.goldstein(a)lp.org>, "starchild(a)lp.org" <starchild(a)lp.org>, " daniel.hayes(a)lp.org" <daniel.hayes(a)lp.org>, "joshua.katz(a)lp.org" < joshua.katz(a)lp.org>, "caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org" <caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org>, " steven.nielson(a)lp.org" <steven.nielson(a)lp.org>, "ed.marsh(a)lp.org" < ed.marsh(a)lp.org>, "steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org" <steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org>, " elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org" <elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org>, "dustin.nanna(a)lp.org" <dustin.nanna(a)lp.org>, "jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org" <jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org>, " aaron.starr(a)lp.org" <aaron.starr(a)lp.org>, "james.lark(a)lp.org" < james.lark(a)lp.org>, "trent.somes(a)lp.org" <trent.somes(a)lp.org>, " david.demarest(a)lp.org" <david.demarest(a)lp.org>, "sean.otoole(a)lp.org" < sean.otoole(a)lp.org>, "whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org" <whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org>, " erin.adams(a)lp.org" <erin.adams(a)lp.org>, "patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org" < patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org>, "larry.sharpe(a)lp.org" <larry.sharpe(a)lp.org> Honorable LEC Members: I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. In liberty, Scotty Boman Libertarian Party Member (313) 247-2052 Copying this for the LNC list. I spoke briefly with Mr. Boman on social media. Regional Representatives should do the will of their Region, and Mr. Boman is not in my region. Regional Representatives are accountable to their state chairs as per our Bylaws unless the regional agreement says otherwise. I promised at my election to follow the procedure I am following and thus upon which I was elected. I do not betray my promises. Some points though need to be addressed. 1. There isn't a "poorly publicized meeting" as no meeting has been set. One cannot publicize something that is not scheduled. Our discussions are far from poorly publicized. Any member can read every single LNC discussion if they avail themselves of it. 2. One thing the LNC is not is operating under a cover of darkness. That is unwarranted hyperbole that is not cognizant of the tremendous transparency we do have compared to LNC subcommittees and other organizations. 3. No, Mr. Vohra was not elected on this agenda. He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone. That is not acceptable to me. 4. The Bylaws give this option. The Bylaws that were not changed last convention and represent the rules of this Body. The same Bylaws that delegates voted to give this Body the discretion to do. I will be campaigning for a change to have a direct right of recall but that does not exist right now, and thus, this is properly in our purview. 5. As far as diversity and "not them." I beg to differ. I am a radical anarchist. Just like Mr. Vohra. This has nothing to do with "not them" and factionalism for me. I await the final instruction from my Regional Chairs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scotty Boman <[1]scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM Subject: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra To: "[2]chair(a)lp.org" <[3]chair(a)lp.org>, "[4]vicechair(a)lp.org" <[5]vicechair(a)lp.org>, "[6]treasurer(a)lp.org" <[7]treasurer(a)lp.org>, "[8]secretary(a)lp.org" <[9]secretary(a)lp.org>, "[10]william.redpath(a)lp.org" <[11]william.redpath(a)lp.org>, "[12]sam.goldstein(a)lp.org" <[13]sam.goldstein(a)lp.org>, "[14]starchild(a)lp.org" <[15]starchild(a)lp.org>, "[16]daniel.hayes(a)lp.org" <[17]daniel.hayes(a)lp.org>, "[18]joshua.katz(a)lp.org" <[19]joshua.katz(a)lp.org>, "[20]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org" <[21]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org>, "[22]steven.nielson(a)lp.org" <[23]steven.nielson(a)lp.org>, "[24]ed.marsh(a)lp.org" <[25]ed.marsh(a)lp.org>, "[26]steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org" <[27]steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org>, "[28]elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org" <[29]elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org>, "[30]dustin.nanna(a)lp.org" <[31]dustin.nanna(a)lp.org>, "[32]jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org" <[33]jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org>, "[34]aaron.starr(a)lp.org" <[35]aaron.starr(a)lp.org>, "[36]james.lark(a)lp.org" <[37]james.lark(a)lp.org>, "[38]trent.somes(a)lp.org" <[39]trent.somes(a)lp.org>, "[40]david.demarest(a)lp.org" <[41]david.demarest(a)lp.org>, "[42]sean.otoole(a)lp.org" <[43]sean.otoole(a)lp.org>, "[44]whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org" <[45]whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org>, "[46]erin.adams(a)lp.org" <[47]erin.adams(a)lp.org>, "[48]patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org" <[49]patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org>, "[50]larry.sharpe(a)lp.org" <[51]larry.sharpe(a)lp.org> Honorable LEC Members: I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. In liberty, Scotty Boman Libertarian Party Member [52](313) 247-2052 References 1. mailto:scottyboman@hotmail.com 2. mailto:chair@lp.org 3. mailto:chair@lp.org 4. mailto:vicechair@lp.org 5. mailto:vicechair@lp.org 6. mailto:treasurer@lp.org 7. mailto:treasurer@lp.org 8. mailto:secretary@lp.org 9. mailto:secretary@lp.org 10. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 11. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 12. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 13. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 14. mailto:starchild@lp.org 15. mailto:starchild@lp.org 16. mailto:daniel.hayes@lp.org 17. mailto:daniel.hayes@lp.org 18. mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org 19. mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org 20. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 21. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 22. mailto:steven.nielson@lp.org 23. mailto:steven.nielson@lp.org 24. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 25. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 26. mailto:steven.nekhaila@lp.org 27. mailto:steven.nekhaila@lp.org 28. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 29. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 30. mailto:dustin.nanna@lp.org 31. mailto:dustin.nanna@lp.org 32. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt@lp.org 33. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt@lp.org 34. mailto:aaron.starr@lp.org 35. mailto:aaron.starr@lp.org 36. mailto:james.lark@lp.org 37. mailto:james.lark@lp.org 38. mailto:trent.somes@lp.org 39. mailto:trent.somes@lp.org 40. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 41. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 42. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 43. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 44. mailto:whitney.bilyeu@lp.org 45. mailto:whitney.bilyeu@lp.org 46. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 47. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 48. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 50. mailto:larry.sharpe@lp.org 51. mailto:larry.sharpe@lp.org 52. tel:(313) 247-2052

3 3

I hope this article is wrong and our candidate didn't say this...
by Starchild 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

> SARASOTA — Legislation that would punish local governments that don’t fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities drew support from Libertarian Alison Foxall and criticism from Democrat Margaret Good during a candidate forum for the state House District 72 race Tuesday. > Foxall, a Sarasota marketing company owner, noted that the so-called sanctuary cities bill — which cleared the Florida House last week — has become “a very hot button issue.” > > “I don’t understand why,” Foxall said in arguing that undocumented immigrants present potential health and public safety problems. (From http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180116/sarasota-state-house-candidates-…) I can't find anything on Alison Foxall's website about immigration one way or the other, and want to give her the benefit of the doubt that the paper got it wrong. I've copied the candidate, who is also a member of the Social Media Process Review Committee, on this message so she can address what her local paper reported. Hopefully we are not too preoccupied with policing intemperate posts on Facebook to be concerned if a Libertarian candidate is taking actual anti-libertarian positions at a public campaign event covered by the media. Allison's campaign is currently being touted in an ad on the front page of LP.org. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee starchild(a)lp.org (415) 625-FREE

3 3

draft minutes for 01/16/18 EC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Attached are the draft minutes for last night's EC meeting. Absent objection from an EC member who attended, these minutes will auto-approve on January 31, 2018. -Alicia

2 2

Fwd: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
by Elizabeth Van Horn 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Forwarding, so this correspondence is seen on the archives. -------- Original Message -------- SUBJECT: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra DATE: 2018-01-20 04:58 FROM: Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org> TO: Scotty Boman <scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> CC: chair(a)lp.org, vicechair(a)lp.org, treasurer(a)lp.org, secretary(a)lp.org, william.redpath(a)lp.org, sam.goldstein(a)lp.org, starchild(a)lp.org, daniel.hayes(a)lp.org, joshua.katz(a)lp.org, caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org, steven.nielson(a)lp.org, ed.marsh(a)lp.org, steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org, dustin.nanna(a)lp.org, jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org, aaron.starr(a)lp.org, james.lark(a)lp.org, trent.somes(a)lp.org, david.demarest(a)lp.org, sean.otoole(a)lp.org, whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org, erin.adams(a)lp.org, patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org, larry.sharpe(a)lp.org Hello Scotty, We met briefly, when I attended the LPMI convention this past year. You're in Region 3, which I represent. I appreciate your stance regarding waiting until convention to let the normal delegate process take place. That is my personal stance as well. That was my position, when many outraged LP members last year were calling for Arvin to resign or be removed. I tried to do damage control and talk them back from their stance. Regardless, this is now the situation: LPIN made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra, in November of 2017. It was the LPIN SCC, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I didn't know it was happening, and was surprised when I found out. LPOH made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra on Friday January 12th, 2018. It was the LPOH Executive Committee, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I knew nothing about the doings of the committee, and only found out after the LPOH chair shared the information in a Region 3 leaders group. Both LPIN and LPOH were directing me to take action to remove Arvin Vohra, through the LNC board. I DIDN'T. Instead I told the Region 3 chairs, that since there are four state affiliates in Region 3, I'd need a clear directive of 3/4 of the region. I brought this stipulation to the attention of all four state affiliate chairs. LPKY chair eventually responded that he too was in accord. (LPMI still has it under consideration, until a Feb meeting) Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to? I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3. That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally wouldn't do.) Yes, I understand that you're in Region 3, and that you think your voice isn't being heard. Currently, we have a representative system in place for the LNC. That means that hundreds of LP members are all being represented by one person. (For At-Large Reps, it's thousands of LP members being represented) If you think that the ability for suspension of an officer shouldn't exist for the LNC, then it would need to be changed in the LP-Bylaws. Currently, there is a provision for doing so, otherwise, this body wouldn't have this issue under consideration. I fully except you to vote your conscience at the 2018 NOLA convention, as will I, as we are each individuals there, and have our one vote. If you chose to not vote for me to represent Region 3, I understand, and no hard feelings. Kind regards, Elizabeth Van Horn --- 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/ On 2018-01-20 02:21, Scotty Boman wrote: > Honorable LEC Members: > > I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. > > While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. > > What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. > > I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. > > Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. > > If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. > > The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. > > Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. > > In liberty, > Scotty Boman > Libertarian Party Member > (313) 247-2052 Forwarding, so this correspondence is seen on the archives. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra Date: 2018-01-20 04:58 From: Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org> To: Scotty Boman <scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> Cc: chair(a)lp.org, vicechair(a)lp.org, treasurer(a)lp.org, secretary(a)lp.org, william.redpath(a)lp.org, sam.goldstein(a)lp.org, starchild(a)lp.org, daniel.hayes(a)lp.org, joshua.katz(a)lp.org, caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org, steven.nielson(a)lp.org, ed.marsh(a)lp.org, steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org, dustin.nanna(a)lp.org, jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org, aaron.starr(a)lp.org, james.lark(a)lp.org, trent.somes(a)lp.org, david.demarest(a)lp.org, sean.otoole(a)lp.org, whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org, erin.adams(a)lp.org, patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org, larry.sharpe(a)lp.org Hello Scotty, We met briefly, when I attended the LPMI convention this past year. You're in Region 3, which I represent. I appreciate your stance regarding waiting until convention to let the normal delegate process take place. That is my personal stance as well. That was my position, when many outraged LP members last year were calling for Arvin to resign or be removed. I tried to do damage control and talk them back from their stance. Regardless, this is now the situation: LPIN made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra, in November of 2017. It was the LPIN SCC, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I didn't know it was happening, and was surprised when I found out. LPOH made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra on Friday January 12th, 2018. It was the LPOH Executive Committee, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I knew nothing about the doings of the committee, and only found out after the LPOH chair shared the information in a Region 3 leaders group. Both LPIN and LPOH were directing me to take action to remove Arvin Vohra, through the LNC board. I didn't. Instead I told the Region 3 chairs, that since there are four state affiliates in Region 3, I'd need a clear directive of 3/4 of the region. I brought this stipulation to the attention of all four state affiliate chairs. LPKY chair eventually responded that he too was in accord. (LPMI still has it under consideration, until a Feb meeting) Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to? I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3. That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally wouldn't do.) Yes, I understand that you're in Region 3, and that you think your voice isn't being heard. Currently, we have a representative system in place for the LNC. That means that hundreds of LP members are all being represented by one person. (For At-Large Reps, it's thousands of LP members being represented) If you think that the ability for suspension of an officer shouldn't exist for the LNC, then it would need to be changed in the LP-Bylaws. Currently, there is a provision for doing so, otherwise, this body wouldn't have this issue under consideration. I fully except you to vote your conscience at the 2018 NOLA convention, as will I, as we are each individuals there, and have our one vote. If you chose to not vote for me to represent Region 3, I understand, and no hard feelings. Kind regards, Elizabeth Van Horn --- 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 [1]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 02:21, Scotty Boman wrote: Honorable LEC Members: I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. In liberty, Scotty Boman Libertarian Party Member (313) 247-2052 References 1. http://www.lpcaucus.org/

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] One quick question regarding the matter of Arvin Vohra
by Whitney Bilyeu 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

Tom, Absolutely NOT. However, this has been spread far and wide enough that it is now impacting donor relations - new and existing. It has impacted Libertarian candidates, who otherwise may have been able to do a beautiful job conveying the Party's position on age of consent laws. It has created conditions under which we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. It has pitted otherwise like-minded Libertarians against one another, more so than any other matter since I have been involved. No matter which way the LNC goes, it could have a lasting negative impact on the Party. My preference, and that of others, would be to survey the 2016 delegates and have them make this decision...it is really theirs to make. However, that is not where we are at this moment. I appreciate your input, and I look forward to a thorough and thoughtful resolution. Whitney Bilyeu LNC Region 7 Rep On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Thomas Knapp <kubby.communications@gmail. com> wrote: > Dear Libertarian National Committee, > > This is not an "open" letter, although I won't presume to tell you not to > share it if you think there's a reason to. Each member of the LNC, and > nobody else, is BCCed on it. Feel free to respond, or not, as you like, and > to cc or BCC whomever you like if you do. > > This is also not intended to be an argumentative letter. I am not going to > try to tell you how great the vice-chair is and why he shouldn't be > removed, or how awful he is and why he should be removed. > > Instead, I want to posit one simple question to all of you: > > Do you want this LNC, and all subsequent LNCs, to spend their half their > time henceforth deciding whether or not to remove people from the LNC every > time someone can get a mob together to complain about Facebook posts? > > Your decision in this matter will send a clear market signal vis a vis > your desire for more or fewer such future situations. > > Have a great weekend. > > Best regards, > Tom Knapp > Libertarian Party Member > Florida > Tom, Absolutely NOT. However, this has been spread far and wide enough that it is now impacting donor relations - new and existing. It has impacted Libertarian candidates, who otherwise may have been able to do a beautiful job conveying the Party's position on age of consent laws. It has created conditions under which we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. It has pitted otherwise like-minded Libertarians against one another, more so than any other matter since I have been involved. No matter which way the LNC goes, it could have a lasting negative impact on the Party. My preference, and that of others, would be to survey the 2016 delegates and have them make this decision...it is really theirs to make. However, that is not where we are at this moment. I appreciate your input, and I look forward to a thorough and thoughtful resolution. Whitney Bilyeu LNC Region 7 Rep On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Thomas Knapp <[1]kubby.communications(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Libertarian National Committee, This is not an "open" letter, although I won't presume to tell you not to share it if you think there's a reason to. Each member of the LNC, and nobody else, is BCCed on it. Feel free to respond, or not, as you like, and to cc or BCC whomever you like if you do. This is also not intended to be an argumentative letter. I am not going to try to tell you how great the vice-chair is and why he shouldn't be removed, or how awful he is and why he should be removed. Instead, I want to posit one simple question to all of you: Do you want this LNC, and all subsequent LNCs, to spend their half their time henceforth deciding whether or not to remove people from the LNC every time someone can get a mob together to complain about Facebook posts? Your decision in this matter will send a clear market signal vis a vis your desire for more or fewer such future situations. Have a great weekend. Best regards, Tom Knapp Libertarian Party Member Florida References 1. mailto:kubby.communications@gmail.com

1 0

handling scandals and outrage
by Wes Benedict 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

Dear LNC: While many statistics for the LP are better than comparable years of recent times, it seems we keep having a series of public relations scandals accompanied with lots of outrage. The convention stripper, the mysterious death in the hotel, Aleppo, Hillary, the No More Pauls meme, the 2017 Satanic Panic, the Alt-Right, the fascists, are soldiers murderers, are public school teachers and students welfare queens, and of course the current topic, age of consent, come to mind. I don't like the scandals and wish they'd stop happening. Something tells me my wish may not come true when I look at all the sources for scandals. There's the concept of "reach" on social media. Some things reach a large audience, and some things don't reach many people. Unfortunately, it seems Libertarians who don't like some of the scandals above are also the individuals who increase the reach of the scandals by sharing them, re-posting them, and commenting about them on social media. While some of the scandals are inadvertent, the possibility of reaching a large audience might also inadvertently be inciting scandals by opportunists. I was wondering if perhaps the Social Media Process Review Committee or some other committee could take on the task of doing some research on best practices related to damage prevention and reach on social media. Perhaps they'd find some information that would be helpful. Cultural changes are very difficult, but perhaps they could find some information that might help encourage a more positive culture among Libertarians on facebook, and sharing of the good stuff while shunning the bad stuff. I'm not asking for top-down directives, just some practices, that when shared, might get buy in from the Libertarian grassroots. I've swept several scandals under the rug over the years. You can't list those--for an obvious reason. I do think it's a long shot to think we can change the culture. Scandals in Libertarian circles have been erupting since I joined the party 20 years ago, and they happen in the other parties, too. But, I think it's possible things could be improved a bit. Regardless, I plan to keep plugging along. Take care, -- Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

3 2

Fwd: Re: Arvin
by david.demarest＠lp.org 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

Forwarding my reply to Rick Vandeven... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Arvin Date: 2018-01-19 12:16 From: david.demarest(a)lp.org To: Rick Vandeven <rickvandeven(a)sbcglobal.net> Mr. Vandeven, Thank you for your wise input. I will be voting "NO" on the Arvin Vohra removal motion. I agree that Arvin was elected by convention delegates. In the absence of carefully defined cause, despite flawed hysterical politically-correct allegations to the contrary, this motion usurps the responsibility of delegates. I have no intention of taking a popularity poll. Regardless of how I vote, my vote will inevitably step on the dictates of conscience of some if not a majority of Region 6 Libertarians. The inevitable expectation is the fault of the system. I have received a fair amount of input from Region 6 in the form of requests to offer a motion, vote "YES" or "NO", speed up the process, slow down the process and a large amount of invective. I have noted that a significant percentage of Region 6 communication on the matter has been sent directly to the LNC. Excellent! I have clearly indicated that I will vote the dictates of my conscience after carefully listening to all input, particularly what I deem to be thoughtful input. I have received some thoughtful input on both sides of the issue. The larger percentage has been diluted with less than thoughtful input exhibiting various degrees of vitriol. Nevertheless, I have labored to ferret out the nuggets of wisdom from the vitriol and there have been some. I would note that we have limited ability for voters to determine the dictates of conscience of candidates before we vote on elective positions, particularly LNC regional representatives. Some regions are making significant progress in getting more organized. With no intention of being exclusionary, Region 1 under the leadership of Caryn Ann is setting an excellent example. I had exactly 3 seconds to decide if I would accept the nomination for Region 6 Representative. How the heck can dictates of conscience be expressed by candidates and requested, assimilated and evaluated by voters in such circumstances. Point of fact, many if most candidates avoid discussing the dictates of their conscience like the plague and prefer to wallow in the political correctness necessary to fool the voters into electing them. Do you wonder why I prefer voluntary bottom-up leadership by example? Early in this term, Caryn Ann Harlos and I, with help from Whitney Bilyeau, proposed policy manual definitions of responsibilities and action guidelines for regional representatives and alternates. We were basically encouraged to figure it out on our own. Caryn Ann and I have agreed to pursue this initiative again before the end of this term at the upcoming national convention. Over a year ago, I self-term-limited myself to one term to make room for fresh voices. I would be available to provide guidance if asked. If the event these policy enhancements do not occur during this term, I would hope that future regional representatives and alternates will pursue this initiative. Mr. Vandeven, thank you again for having the courage to voice the dictates of your conscience in a hostile environment. Thoughts? ~David Pratt Demarest LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI, with SD waiting in the wings) On 2018-01-19 00:55, Rick Vandeven wrote: > Mr. Demarest, > > I simply wanted to take the time to express my hope that you will be a > "NO" vote to remove Arvin Vohra from the LNC. I believe that the LP > can and should be the proverbial "big tent of ideas", especially those > that are challenging. I also believe that this is an issue that can be > dealt with at the national convention in July should Arvin choose to > run for Vice-Chair again. > > Thank-you for your time! > > _Rick Vandeven_ > _Candidate - State Rep MO 151_ > _Vice-Chair - Missouri Libertarian Party_ > www.lpmo.org/ [1] > _573-318-5564_ > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.lpmo.org/

1 0