[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jan 27 04:17:45 EST 2018
I agree Alicia. I didn't even get into the Platform interpretation issue.
I don't think our platform deals with the issue either for reasons I
explicated in full in an earlier post, but that is not our counsel's job.
I am a paralegal. I know how opinion letters are written. And this seems
to be written as if it were not an internal conflict but like it was an
outside contractor that was the "accused" and a rah-rah letter that we
would win a lawsuit. As such it is taking a position in an internal
dispute on the LNC and that is not appropriate.
I would say this no matter the conclusion. I feel like a bit of our
judgment and that of the affiliates was just usurped.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
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 <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 <
>> 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 --------------
I agree Alicia. I didn't even get into the Platform interpretation
issue. I don't think our platform deals with the issue either for
reasons I explicated in full in an earlier post, but that is not our
counsel's job.
I am a paralegal. I know how opinion letters are written. And this
seems to be written as if it were not an internal conflict but like it
was an outside contractor that was the "accused" and a rah-rah letter
that we would win a lawsuit. As such it is taking a position in an
internal dispute on the LNC and that is not appropriate.
I would say this no matter the conclusion. I feel like a bit of our
judgment and that of the affiliates was just usurped.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> 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
<[2]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
<[3]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:[4]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
2. [5]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
4. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
5. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list