[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sun Jan 28 16:56:51 EST 2018
Thank you Oliver. I do think giving an opinion on our Bylaws, Platform,
and RONR (and you are just wrong there IMHO- and are not a parliamentarian
that I know of) is out of bounds.
And whether intended or not, it has unduly influenced members on a question
which is not a legal question.
Since we now can’t unsee what has been seen, there is a skilled attorney
who is a member, who does not have a conflict and believes there is cause,
that I would like to ask to submit an opinion if he would do so gratis. I
haven’t asked him so he may decline but I think this is the only way we can
even this field.
Unwittingly Oliver, you have inserted a scorpion in our member debates and
there is some resentment over it in my Region, particularly so far Alaska
(members).
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:19 PM Oliver Hall <oliverbhall at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> I would like to respond to the questions LNC members have asked about
> the report I prepared in response to the complaint filed by Merissa
> Hamilton against Arvin Vohra.
>
> First, what direction or guidance was I given in regard to the content
> of the report?
>
> None. The report is my own work-product, and it is based exclusively on
> my own legal judgment. At no time did anyone request or suggest that the
> report reach a particular outcome, nor did anyone request or suggest any
> changes or revisions to the report as I drafted it. The Chair simply
> forwarded me the complaint and asked how the LNC should respond. I
> advised that the LNC should conduct an investigation. The Chair asked
> that I do so. I then conducted the investigation described in the
> report, at the conclusion of which I informed the Chair of my opinion
> that the evidence does not support the allegations in the complaint. The
> Chair asked me to prepare a written report. I prepared the report,
> submitted it to the Chair, and the Chair made it available to the LNC.
>
> Second, did the report go beyond the issues raised in the complaint by
> addressing the issues of whether Mr. Vohra violated the party platform
> or policy manual, whether his remarks were respectful and professional,
> or what remedy would be appropriate for the Complainant?
>
> The complaint alleges that Mr. Vohra violated the party platform and
> policy manual. The report therefore addresses those issues.
> Additionally, the purpose of the policy manual provision cited in the
> complaint is to ensure that libertarians "treat each other with
> professional respect, thoughtful consideration, and fundamental
> decency". The report therefore addresses the issue of whether Mr. Vohra
> was respectful and professional when he made his comments. Finally,
> given its conclusion that the policy manual provides no authority for
> the relief requested, the report notes that other avenues for relief may
> be available to the Complainant.
>
> Third, does the report attempt to influence the LNC's deliberations
> with respect to whether to impose disciplinary action against Mr. Vohra?
>
> My role is to provide legal advice to the LNC, but in every case the LNC
> decides what to do. I have no personal interest in or opinion about this
> matter. I do have a professional interest in ensuring that the LNC has
> sound legal advice, and that is what I gave.
>
> I hope these answers were helpful. If any member would like to discuss
> these issues further, please feel free contact me directly at
> oliverbhall at gmail.com or 617-953-0161.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Oliver Hall
>
>
> On 1/28/2018 5:27 AM, Starchild wrote:
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Thank you Oliver. I do think giving an opinion on our Bylaws,
Platform, and RONR (and you are just wrong there IMHO- and are not a
parliamentarian that I know of) is out of bounds.
And whether intended or not, it has unduly influenced members on a
question which is not a legal question.
Since we now can’t unsee what has been seen, there is a skilled
attorney who is a member, who does not have a conflict and believes
there is cause, that I would like to ask to submit an opinion if he
would do so gratis. I haven’t asked him so he may decline but I think
this is the only way we can even this field.
Unwittingly Oliver, you have inserted a scorpion in our member debates
and there is some resentment over it in my Region, particularly so far
Alaska (members).
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:19 PM Oliver Hall <[1]oliverbhall at gmail.com>
wrote:
Good Morning,
I would like to respond to the questions LNC members have asked
about
the report I prepared in response to the complaint filed by Merissa
Hamilton against Arvin Vohra.
First, what direction or guidance was I given in regard to the
content
of the report?
None. The report is my own work-product, and it is based exclusively
on
my own legal judgment. At no time did anyone request or suggest that
the
report reach a particular outcome, nor did anyone request or suggest
any
changes or revisions to the report as I drafted it. The Chair simply
forwarded me the complaint and asked how the LNC should respond. I
advised that the LNC should conduct an investigation. The Chair
asked
that I do so. I then conducted the investigation described in the
report, at the conclusion of which I informed the Chair of my
opinion
that the evidence does not support the allegations in the complaint.
The
Chair asked me to prepare a written report. I prepared the report,
submitted it to the Chair, and the Chair made it available to the
LNC.
Second, did the report go beyond the issues raised in the complaint
by
addressing the issues of whether Mr. Vohra violated the party
platform
or policy manual, whether his remarks were respectful and
professional,
or what remedy would be appropriate for the Complainant?
The complaint alleges that Mr. Vohra violated the party platform and
policy manual. The report therefore addresses those issues.
Additionally, the purpose of the policy manual provision cited in
the
complaint is to ensure that libertarians "treat each other with
professional respect, thoughtful consideration, and fundamental
decency". The report therefore addresses the issue of whether Mr.
Vohra
was respectful and professional when he made his comments. Finally,
given its conclusion that the policy manual provides no authority
for
the relief requested, the report notes that other avenues for relief
may
be available to the Complainant.
Third, does the report attempt to i�nfluence the LNC's deliberations
with respect to whether to impose disciplinary action against Mr.
Vohra?
My role is to provide legal advice to the LNC, but in every case the
LNC
decides what to do. I have no personal interest in or opinion about
this
matter. I do have a professional interest in ensuring that the LNC
has
sound legal advice, and that is what I gave.
I hope these answers were helpful. If any member would like to
discuss
these issues further, please feel free contact me directly at
[2]oliverbhall at gmail.com or 617-953-0161.
Thank you,
Oliver Hall
On 1/28/2018 5:27 AM, Starchild wrote:
> 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
> [3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1. mailto:[6][7][10]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:[7][8][11]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>>> 3. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 4. [9][9][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[10][13]starchild at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[11][14]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 3. mailto:[12][15]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[13][16]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>> 5. [14][17]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 6. mailto:[15][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 7. mailto:[16][19]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>> 8. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 9. [18][20]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> --
>> Arvin Vohra
>> [19][21]www.VoteVohra.com
>> [20][22]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> (301) 320-3634
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:[23]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[24]starchild at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[25]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 4. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[27]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>> 6. [28]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 7. mailto:[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 8. mailto:[30]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>> 9. [31]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 10. mailto:[32]starchild at lp.org
>> 11. mailto:[33]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 12. mailto:[34]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 13. mailto:[35]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>> 14. [36]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 15. mailto:[37]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 16. mailto:[38]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>> 17. mailto:[39]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 18. [40]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 19. [41]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 20. mailto:[42]VoteVohra at gmail.com
References
1. mailto:oliverbhall at gmail.com
2. mailto:oliverbhall at gmail.com
3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:starchild at lp.org
6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:starchild at lp.org
14. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
16. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
17. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
19. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
22. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
23. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
24. mailto:starchild at lp.org
25. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
28. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
31. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
32. mailto:starchild at lp.org
33. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
34. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
35. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
36. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
37. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
38. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
39. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
40. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
41. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
42. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list