[Lnc-business] Recent Comments Concerning My Representation of the LNC

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Hall I remain of that opinion.  I am a legal professional myself and I
know fully well that you are not adequately versed in parliamentary law.
There are several examples of that in the opinion.

Further, you also know texts do not appear in isolation and seeing how I
had to send you a copy of RONR the day before, I hardly think that is a
careful study.  I have studied RONR for four years now and am barely
qualified.  There are experts in this field and the LNC should have
consulted one.

The most glaringly error was that interpretative principles were loosely
goosey suggestions.  They are not.

Your opinion was rendered publicly and is being used.  My opposition and
opinion are similarly public.

I do not feel the interests of the entire LNC are being represented but the
personal agenda of our chair.

That is my opinion.  And in my position as an officer of this Party, if I
think we are being poorly served in this area I must say so.

I had a similar opinion back when we were not advised of the “eternal
secrecy clause” in the Johnson contract as well.

I may be the only one saying this.  I’m not the only one thinking it.

I wouldn’t be so shocked by it if your work was not stellar in everything
else.  Which it is.

If that opinion had been presented to the LNC in private, I would have
given mine in private but it was sprung on us.

There is NO RP or PRP that I know that would agree with your opinion.  If
it were correct we have been abusing members for the past decade as there
has Shasta been requests for online conventions and they were told our
bylaws do not permit it.  And then poof!  It magically appears when our
chair wants it.

Find a PRP to support your opinion.  You won’t be able to.

If you had limited it to an “emergency reading” it would be different but
you are actually claiming that this option was there all along with only a
slight nod to an emergency reading.



On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 5:05 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Mr Hall I see no issue with you rendering a legal opinion when asked.
> That is after all what we pay you for.
>
> I noted your unwillingness to pick an option on LPTV and thought your
> actions were exactly as they should have been.
>
> Thank you for your diligent service.  Other's expert opinions do not
> prevent you from offering yours as part of your contracted duties.
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 8, 2020 5:51 PM, Oliver Hall via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Libertarian National Committee Members:
>
> I generally refrain from posting to this list unless it relates to LNC
> legal matters, but Ms. Harlos' recent comments pertaining to me require
> a response.
>
> First, Ms. Harlos has suggested that it was improper for me to render a
> legal opinion on whether the LNC bylaws permit an online convention, and
> that I am "in danger of malpractice" for rendering the opinion that I
> did. That is incorrect.
>
> As counsel to the LNC, I am routinely called upon to construe contracts
> and other legal instruments and to provide legal opinions about them. My
> retainer agreement with the LNC expressly states that one of my duties
> is to "Construe the Libertarian Party Bylaws and other governing
> documents of the LNC." That is what I did here.
>
> In addition, the legal opinion that I gave is based on a careful review
> of the Bylaws, relevant provisions of Roberts Rules and other
> authorities, including the written opinion of a professional
> parliamentarian. My conclusion that the Bylaws do not prohibit an online
> convention is consistent with the text of the Bylaws, which are silent
> on the matter, and supported by the foregoing authorities. Furthermore,
> my conclusion was narrowly tailored: my opinion states that such a
> construction of the Bylaws is "disfavored" and should not be adopted
> except in emergency circumstances. Disagreement with that conclusion
> does not justify mischaracterizing it as malpractice.
>
> I should also emphasize that I did not and would not advocate for any of
> the options the LNC is considering. Instead, I reviewed each option and
> identified the legal issues and risks that each one raises. That is what
> the LNC retained me to do, and I have been doing it in multiple contexts
> for nearly five years. I represent the entire LNC. As such, I have a
> duty of loyalty to the LNC. I would never betray that duty.
>
> Any suggestion that I have committed malpractice, or that I would breach
> my duty of loyalty to my client, the Libertarian National Committee, is
> a serious accusation. It is also wrong, as a matter of fact and as a
> matter of law. That such accusations were made in a public forum is
> gravely disappointing to me. More important, it is a distraction at a
> time when I should be focusing on the critical legal work that the LNC
> and state party affiliates nationwide need me to do.
>
> It remains my honor and privilege to serve the LNC as your counsel, and
> I look forward to returning to that work immediately. Thank you for your
> time and consideration.
>
> -Oliver
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *