[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter

Starchild starchild at lp.org
Sat Jan 27 07:19:31 EST 2018


	Are you sure Arvin said that, Caryn Ann? After all, his original post posited that there is a difference between the two circumstances you mention, and given those two choices expressed a preference for the latter – that's what first got some people so upset. I don't see the comment you reference mentioned in either the investigation report, or in the complaint.

	But really, even if Arvin did call some people "stupid" during the course of an argument, that hardly seems actionable! I've had worse things said to and about me from time to time by other party leaders. Content aside, from what I've seen it does seem accurate to me to characterize Arvin's exchanges with people about these issues as having been, on the whole, professional and courteous.

	However, Oliver Hall didn't actually make that assertion. I looked to see where he used the word "courteously", and it appears in only one sentence in the investigation report, a sentence not even talking about Arvin, but about the "chilling effect" that counsel believes would result from an expansive interpretation of Policy Manual Section 2.01(4) requiring discipline based on the content of free speech:

> "This chilling effect would be compounded by the fact that Section 2.01-4 lacks
> substantive standards to place speakers on notice of the topics or opinions that could be deemed
> sufficiently offensive to warrant disciplinary action. Officers of the LNC should not be in the
> position of guessing whether the content of their opinions might subject them to disciplinary
> action, no matter how courteously and respectfully those opinions are conveyed."


Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                      RealReform at earthlink.net
                              (415) 625-FREE
 

On Jan 27, 2018, at 1:11 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

>   Also, professionally and courteously?  Really?  Arvin called members
>   STUPID for thinking there was a difference between two 14 year olds
>   having sex and a 14 year old and a much much older person.
> 
>   On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>   Elizabeth you see the same thing I do.
>   ==(I also wondered if that advice was unsolicited)==
>   Precisely.  I would like to know the instructions.
>   The more I read, the more concerned I get.  This appears to be our
>   counsel trying to influence our decision on a separate issue.  I also
>   though this was not a PM issue and told Ms. Hamilton so.  She didn't
>   agree obviously.
> 
>   On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
>   <[2]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>     Caryn Ann,
>     I also read the " factual findings and legal conclusions", of Oliver
>     B. Hall, Special Counsel.
>     I wrote this elsewhere, regarding discussion of the document:
>     "That document has no bearing on what the LNC can do. It's merely
>     stating that in the opinion of legal counsel, the particular
>     complaint that Ms. Hamilton did, was deemed not to violate the line
>     items in the policy that she used to complain. I agree with the
>     decision by legal counsel on that, btw. Ms. Hamilton was making a
>     stretch-at-best, with her complaint."
>     With that said, I also think Mr. Hall overstepped from giving
>     counsel on the particulars of Ms. Hamilton's complaint, to giving
>     unsolicited advice.  (I also wondered if that advice was
>     unsolicited?)
>     "Conclusion
>     The foregoing analysis takes no position on the wisdom or political
>     utility of Mr. Vohra’s
>     commentary published on Facebook. The investigation conducted was
>     confined to whether such
>     commentary violated Section 2.01-4 of the LNC Policy Manual, and
>     whether it was inconsistent
>     with Section 1.4 of the Libertarian Party Platform, as alleged in
>     the Complaint. For the reasons
>     stated herein, I found no such violation or inconsistency. "
>     I agree with the above.
>     The section below isn't part of the above, and isn't appropriate.
>     He's giving his opinion that Arvin's many posts and comments were "
>     respectfully and professionally
>     communicating ideas".   That's not what was asked, and shows a bias.
>     The legal counsel should have only looked into whether the
>     particular line-items of the policy manual were countermanded. This
>     second paragraphs is contradicting his own declaration of what he's
>     "confined" to.
>     "If the content of Mr. Vohra’s ideas are
>     objectionable, or if communicating those ideas makes him unpopular,
>     the appropriate remedy for
>     the Complainant is political in nature – Mr. Vohra’s removal from
>     office by a majority of voting
>     delegates at the next convention. But I do not believe that Section
>     2.01-4 provides the LNC with
>     authority to impose disciplinary action on an officer for
>     respectfully and professionally
>     communicating ideas that may be controversial or even objectionable
>     to party members."
>     This is about the complaint by Ms. Hamilton on specifics of the
>     policy manual.
>     None of this changes my wanting an opportunity to vote regarding the
>     motion for suspension.  Region 3 state affiliates haven't cited the
>     policy manual, nor is it relevant to them wanting Arvin Vohra
>     suspended.
>     I doubt it changes how any of the 17 state affiliates that have
>     called for Arvin to resign or be removed want done.  (If anything,
>     it may further galvanize them.)
>     ---
>     Elizabeth Van Horn
>     On 2018-01-27 02:24, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> 
>     I have read it multiple times and have some questions.  First, I
>     agree
>        this is not a Policy Manual issue so the ultimate conclusion that
>     this
>        is not a PM issue I agree with.  However, it seems to me that
>     counsel
>        greatly over-reached beyond the PM into Bylaws and RONR
>     implications
>        which was not his place IMHO, but in order to know that, I would
>     like
>        to know the specific instructions that were given to counsel.  I
>        understand that is attorney/client privilege and that can be
>     given to
>        me off-list.
>        Specifically were the instructions written?  I would like to see
>     them.
>        If oral, I would like permission to speak with counsel to find
>     out the
>        instructions.
>        --
>        In Liberty,
>        Caryn Ann Harlos
>        Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>        Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>     Washington)
>        - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at 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:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>        2. [4]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 
> References
> 
>   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>   2. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>   3. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>   4. http://www.lpcolorado.org/




More information about the Lnc-business mailing list