[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

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:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>    2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/