[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Sat Jan 27 22:04:31 EST 2018
I don't recall calling any LNC member names or using insults towards
anyone. If I did so, it was inadvertent, and I apologize for any
carelessness. I know that we have many areas of disagreement, on which I
will comment later, but I continue to hold those in the LP, including those
who disagree with me, in high regard and with respect.
-Arvin
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> It is a totality of the circumstances Arvin. I am saying that counsel
> was obviously missing a crucial point if he said that in the face of
> epithets Arvin was polite and respectful.
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Starchild <[1]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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
> [2]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][3]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][4]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][5]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:[6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 2. mailto:[7]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> > 3. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 4. [9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> 2. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 5. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 8. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
I don't recall calling any LNC member names or using insults towards
anyone. If I did so, it was inadvertent, and I apologize for any
carelessness. I know that we have many areas of disagreement, on which
I will comment later, but I continue to hold those in the LP, including
those who disagree with me, in high regard and with respect.
-Arvin
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
It is a totality of the circumstances Arvin. I am saying that
counsel
was obviously missing a crucial point if he said that in the face
of
epithets Arvin was polite and respectful.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Starchild <[1][2]starchild at lp.org>
wrote:
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
[2][3]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][3][4]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][4][5]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][5][6]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[6][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[7][8]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 4. [9][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[10]starchild at lp.org
2. mailto:[11]RealReform at earthlink.net
3. mailto:[12]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[13]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
5. [14]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
6. mailto:[15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[16]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
8. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
9. [18]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
--
Arvin Vohra
[19]www.VoteVohra.com
[20]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:starchild at lp.org
3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
6. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:starchild at lp.org
11. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
12. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
13. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
14. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
19. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
20. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list