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

Fri May 8 23:22:26 EDT 2020

The LNC is the client.  The opinion was shared publicly.  Our chair should
have shared it privately for comment first.  It already is in the public
eye.

I do not keep things secret from the members that they have a right to
know.  I had no intention of bringing it up again but here it is.

I do not discuss things in secret session with rare exception.  My position
is that our chair put Mr. Hall in an untenable position.

Who is the parliamentarian?

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:35 PM Francis Wendt <francis.wendt at lp.org> wrote:

> 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. *
>
-- 

*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. *