Draft of the Harlos Appeal

Last updated on October 16, 2024

What you read below is the draft of the appeal against the Harlos suspension. The actual appeal gets some additional boilerplate, such as a list of interested parties: In this case, that would be the LNC, the signers, the Oliver campaign, the Colorado LP Executive Committee however titled, and of course, all delegates at the last national convention, as it is their will being frustrated.

DRAFT – FRONT-END Boilerplate TO BE ADDED

 

George Phillies, on behalf of Appellants, against decisions of the Libertarian National Committee made in its Special Meeting of October 6.

 

On behalf of sustaining members and separately on behalf of elected National Convention delegates, whose electronic signatures in support of this action are attached, I hereby appeal the decisions of the Libertarian National Committee in passing the charges and specifications it made against Caryn Ann Harlos, Libertarian National Committee Secretary, including the motion to suspend her as Secretary until the final disposition of the case, and the appointment of Mr. Jonathan McGee to act as manager of the case for the Libertarian National Committee.

 

The appellant will present the appeal or have the appeal presented by another Sustaining Member of the party.

 

The requested action of the Judicial Committee is that the associated motions shall be overturned by the Judicial Committee and found to be null and void for violation of the Bylaws, that in consequence Caryn Ann Harlos shall be restored to her authorities, rights, and duties as Secretary  and all other positions within the party from which she was suspended, that National Committee actions consequent to these decisions such as a trial are invalid, and that a statement should be inserted in party minutes preceding each motion and vote, stating that the motion has been overturned by the Judicial Committee.

 

For the convenience of the Judicial Committee, I have arranged the Grounds for Appeal in decreasing order of importance.

 

1) Basis of the appeal: The basis of the appeal is Article 7.12 of the Bylaws, providing that on appeal by 10% of the delegates or 1% of the party sustaining members, the Judicial Committee shall consider whether a decision of the National Committee contravenes specific sections of the bylaws.  Passing a motion, such as the charges and specifications motions, as was done by the National Committee, constitutes a decision of the National Committee and is therefore subject to appeal.

 

To answer an expected objection, Article 6.7 of the bylaws provides a path by which an officer who has been suspended can appeal his or her suspension, the appeal requiring only the action of the officer. Article 6.7 creates a second path for generating an appeal; it does not extinguish the rights and privileges of the  sustaining members and Convention delegates under Article 7.12.

 

2) The text of the charges and specifications are attached as an Appendix.  The minutes of the meeting of October 6 are not yet available.

 

3) Grounds for Appeal #1:    The action of the LNC in suspending Caryn Ann Harlos “until disposition of the case” is invalid, because the National Committee has no such authority. Article 6, Section 7, provides a timeline for suspending an officer, namely the National Committee votes, the officer may or may not choose to appeal, the Judicial Committee hears the officer’s appeal if any, and the appeal is then sustained (restoring the officer)  or denied (affirming the suspension).   Under Article 6, Section 7, if there is a vote to suspend, it must up to Judicial Committee action be terminal, not temporary.

 

4) Grounds for appeal #2. Charge 1, specification 2 claims that Ms. Harlos failed to follow a legitimate instruction of the National Committee Chair by filing paperwork regarding the presidential ticket exclusive of the electors, with the Colorado Secretary of State.

 

The alleged order by the National Chair was illegitimate. Our bylaws, Article 14.3 provide “the National Committee shall respect the vote of the delegates at nominating Conventions and provide full support for the party’s nominee for president …  as long as their campaigns are conducted in accordance with the platform of the party .” Assuredly, ensuring that Chase Oliver and Michael Ter Maat were placed on the Colorado ballot for the fall general election is an aspect of full support. Contrariwise, preventing these two gentlemen from having their names appear on the Colorado ballot, as the National Chair attempted to do, is the opposite of full support. It is opposition.  The alleged order of the National Chair to Harlos, ordering Harlos not act to place Oliver on the Colorado ballot, is an explicit violation of the bylaws, Article 14.3, and is therefore illegitimate.  The Nuremberg precedent, familiar to generations of American schoolchildren, makes clear that disobedience to an illegitimate or illegal order is not a crime; disobedience to illegal orders is a duty.  Charge 1, Specification 2 is therefore a violation of party Bylaws, article 14.3, and should be found null and void.

 

5) Grounds for appeal #3. Charge 1, Specification 2 further claims that Harlos violated Article 6.5 of the bylaws. Under 6.5 the Secretary is charged with performing such duties as are assigned by the Chair the National Committee. However,  that charge is an affirmative specification,  allowing the Chair to tell the Secretary to do things.  That statement does not permit the National Chair to tell the Secretary not to perform the Secretary’s duties. Furthermore, the next sentence of Article 6.5 charges the Secretary with keeping such records as necessary. A decision of the National Convention to nominate a presidential candidate is certainly a necessary event to be recorded. Records, however, are only effective when supplied to the people who need them. In this case, the Colorado Secretary of State needed confirmation that Chase Oliver is our Presidential candidate.  The Secretary dutifully supplied the Colorado Secretary of State with the needed documentation. The Secretary’s action was a legitimate performance of her Bylaws-assigned duties.

 

6) Grounds for Appeal#4. To show that Charge 1 is invalid, I note that Charge 1, Specification 1 is invalid.  While Charge 1, Specification 1 was not voted  on by the LNC, it is a part of the approval of Charge 1.  Specification 1 claimed that by filing the documentation Harlos interfered with the autonomy of the Colorado party in violation of Article 5.5. However, the Colorado party did not contest the filing. They did not litigate. They did not appeal to the Colorado Secretary of State.  They were not prevented from filing their own documentation asking that Robert F Kennedy be placed on the ballot. There was therefore no interference with the Colorado party’s autonomy.  The claim of Specification 1 is therefore fraudulent, in violation of Article 3, our Statement of Principles,  so Specification 1 is invalid.

 

Because both specifications of Charge 1 violate our bylaws, Charge 1 as a whole violates our bylaws, so the motion approving charge 1 is invalid.

 

7) Grounds for Appeal #5:  The process by which the LNC adopted the motions against Harlos was in violation of the Bylaws, Article 7.15, and was therefore invalid in all respects.

 

Article 7.15 of the bylaws provides: The National Committee and all of its Committees shall conduct all votes and actions in open session; executive session may only be used for discussion of personnel matters, contractual negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or political strategy requiring confidentiality.

 

The discussions of the charges and specifications by the National Committee prior to the votes of October 6 satisfy none of the allowed uses of executive session. In particular:

 

Removal of an officer is not a matter of political strategy.

 

No contracts are involved in this issue.

 

‘Personnel’ are people employed by the National Committee. Harlos is not an employee, she is the person elected by the National Convention to perform certain duties.  Therefore, no personnel are under discussion.

 

There is no pending or potential litigation involved with the suspension.  While there is a derivative suit filed by Caryn Ann Harlos, in this matter Harlos represents the National Committee.

 

It appears that the LNC during executive session may have consulted with its Attorney; litigation could have been involved.  That discussion, the Attorney making a presentation on litigation, proposing a legal defense strategy,  and/or  answering questions, could have been in executive session, but the discussion of these motions, which do not involve litigation, was not.

 

Because the National Committee conducted its debate in secret, in violation of Bylaws 7.15, the votes on the charges and specifications are the poisoned fruit of a toxic tree, and are therefore invalid.  The tree remains poisoned, so it would be invalid for the LNC to consider these motions at a later date.

The debate of the Investigatory Committee was also held in closed session, so all of the above points on this Ground for Appeal apply, except that to my knowledge and belief the Party Attorney was not present in meetings of the Investigatory Committee, so that basis for invoking executive session is not applicable.  The presentation of the Charges and Specifications to the LNC by the Investigatory Committee was therefore also a violation of Article 7.15 and was invalid.

 

Grounds for Appeal #6 Specification 3 of charge 2 claims that Harlos had sent a message that there was a Convention ruling, and that the claim impeded the investigation. The specification violates the Bylaws, Article 3, the Statement of Principles, because it is fraudulent.   The referenced message reads:

 

From: LP Secretary <secr…@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:47:03 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Business <lnc-bu…@lp.org>; 4eb01eb…@amer.teams.ms <4eb01eb…@amer.teams.ms>; businesslist-forward <businessli…@lp.org>
Subject: Preserving point of Order

Last Convention already determined this would be breach of continuing nature.

 

A fair process including persons known for BOTH integrity and impartiality are required on an IC.  Continue with this process without this requirement FOR ALL  and you risk parliamentary Pascal’s wager.

 

And I know enough of you well enough that I know you know it’s wrong.  

 

That’s all I’ll say on the matter.  I was physically ill at the end and do not believe I articulated it as well though I did raise.  

 

These things bring the party together in ways that are usually unintended.

 

Talk to you soon.  

 

The status of the Investigatory Committee as of this date was revealed by a message from its acting Chair, Mr. Malagon, sent on the same date:

From: Adrian Malagon <adrian….@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 7:06:15 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Business <lnc-bu…@lp.org>; 4eb01eb…@amer.teams.ms <4eb01eb…@amer.teams.ms>; businesslist-forward <businessli…@lp.org>
Subject: Investigatory Committee Process

Greetings All,

 

The Investigatory Committee met yesterday briefly, and will be meeting again soon to get formally underway: i.e., elect a Chair and Secretary, attempt to gather evidence from all relevant parties, schedule interviews with said parties, etc.

 

We respectfully request that all discussion on this matter cease (especially publicly as far as members of the LNC are concerned) to allow us to do the work we were appointed to do, and let the process play out.

 

We are committed to being impartial and drafting a report for the LNC to consider after all germane information is gathered. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Adrian F Malagon

Region 4 Alt, Libertarian National Committee

 

showing that on the date and hour in question the Committee had not yet even organized, yet alone started to investigate.  The referenced email had no plausible effect on the investigation, so the claim that the Secretary impeded the investigation is fraudulent, in violation of Article 3, the Statement of Principles.

 

8) Grounds for Appeal #6. Charge 2, Specification 2 relies on secret documents not open to the membership and delegates, making it impossible for them to appeal, because they do not know what was said, a substantial due process violation of  the rights of members and delegates to appeal, in violation of Article 7.12.  It should therefore be voided.