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

[Francis Wendt]

Madam Secretary,

This topic came up during my dinner this evening, and as a legal 
professional you should know that malpractice is brought by a client 
against their legal council. If your intent, then, is to pursue a legal 
malpractice case against Mr. Hall, who has as he stated received the 
opinion of a parliamentarian, that will have to be an issue decided upon 
by either the Chair or the LNC as a whole.

In short, this is not something that should be in the public eye, but 
rather executive session. I kindly request that we bring this matter up 
there, because this back and forth is very damaging to the confidence 
the public may have in our party.

There is a proper time and place for all matters. This is not the time. 
this is not the place. Please, hear my words.

Respectfully,

---
FRANCIS WENDT
LNC Region 1 Alternate
  406.595.5111

On 2020-05-08 20:12, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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. *