[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter
Starchild
starchild at lp.org
Sun Jan 28 05:27:14 EST 2018
Arvin,
Reading what you say here about not calling any LNC member names and wondering what you were referencing, I realized some of the wording of my previous message below was a bit ambiguous and could have been misread as suggesting you'd called me stupid, but that I'd been called worse. For the record, I don't recall ever hearing you say anything of that nature, and was only comparing hypothetically being called stupid with more objectionable things I've had said to or about me by others (as I expect many of us have similarly experienced).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
On Jan 27, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
> 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