[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

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 <
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:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>    2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   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
   <[1]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:[2]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
        2. [3]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
   2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/