I have filed the appeal, which is signed by more than 100 delegates to the last national convention. The appeal follows.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE APPEAL TO VOID LNC DECISIONS OF OCTOBER 6, 2024
George Phillies, on behalf of Appellants, appeals to the Judicial Committee to void the decisions of the Libertarian National Committee made during its Special Meeting of October 6, 2024 for violation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws.
JURISDICTION
The Judicial Committee has subject matter jurisdiction over “voiding of National Committee decisions.” Bylaws, Article 8, Section 2, subsection (d). “Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent regular convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the bylaws.” Bylaws, Article 7, Section 12.
PETITIONERS
This petition is brought on behalf of a group of credentialed delegates from the 2024 Libertarian National Convention that exceeds “ten percent” as required by Article 7, Section 12 of the Bylaws. A validated list of credentialed delegates is attached with over the 93 signatures that are required for an appeal. Attachment A.
AFFECTED PARTIES
The parties affected by these decisions include:
(a) Members of the Libertarian National Committee;
(b) Credentialed delegates of the 2024 National Convention who brought this appeal;
(c) Over 140 sustaining members of the party who also support bringing this appeal;
(d) All members of the Party who have an expectation that Bylaws be followed;
(e) The 51 Affiliate Parties, whose rights to be governed by our Bylaws are impinged.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 25th, 2024, the Libertarian National Committee voted 8-6 to create an investigatory committee to “investigate allegations of misconduct against Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos, which if true cast doubt on her fitness to continue in office, and report resolutions if allegations are well founded.” The members appointed to the investigatory committee were Adrian Malagon, Jonathan McGee, Pat Ford, Dustin Nanna, and Stephen Nekhaila.
On October 6, 2024, the investigatory committee returned a secret report, allegedly 31 pages, to members of the Libertarian National Committee, but not to members or the public.[1] The investigatory committee presented two charges broken into five specifications against Caryn Ann Harlos. All charges, specifications, and motions were related to the submission of a certificate of nomination for Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat to the Colorado Secretary of State and/or disputes about whether such action was consistent with the Secretary’s duties to the Libertarian Party. The specifications, charges, and further motions are contained in Attachment B.
At its October 6, 2024 meeting, the Libertarian National Committee acted on motions on the specifications, charges, and further motions. Motions adopting Specification 2 of Charge 1, Charge 1 itself, the three Specifications of Charge 2, Charge 2 itself, and the two consequent motions all clearly passed. These eight motions are the subject of this appeal.
ARGUMENT
The Libertarian Party’s purposes are established in Article 2 of the Bylaws and include “nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for public office.” The 2024 National Convention nominated Chase Oliver for President and Mike ter Maat for Vice President and the Bylaws require the Libertarian National Committee to “provide full support for the Party’s nominee for President and nominee for Vice-President,” a duty that applies to every member of the committee individually. Bylaws, Article 14, Section 4.
The Secretary of the Libertarian National Committee is required by the Bylaws to keep the records of the party, including the nomination records for President and Vice-President. Bylaws, Article 6, Section 5. The Secretary is also required to provide “full support for the Party’s nominee for President and nominee for Vice-President,” which includes submitting nomination certificates to state election officials to ensure the candidates qualify for the ballot in as many states as possible. Bylaws, Article 14, Section 4.
Two facts are undisputed: (1) The Libertarian National Committee Chair ordered the Secretary not to submit a nomination certificate for Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat to the Colorado Secretary of State to ensure their placement on the ballot and (2) the Libertarian National Committee Secretary did submit a nomination certificate to the for Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat to the Colorado Secretary of State.
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, Section 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 Mike 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, Section 3, and is therefore illegitimate. The Nuremberg precedent, familiar to generations of American schoolchildren following the Nuremberg war crimes trials, makes clear that disobedience to an illegitimate or illegal order is not a crime; disobedience to illegal orders is a duty.
The Chair’s order violated Article 14, Section 4 of the Bylaws, while the Secretary’s action upheld Article 14, Section 4 of the Bylaws.
Charge 1, Specification 2 further claims that Harlos violated Article 6, Section 5 of the Bylaws. The Secretary is charged with performing such duties as are assigned by the Chair or 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, as the same section 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.
Charge 2, Specification 2 relies on secret documents, namely a 31-page report of the Investigatory Committee chaired by Adrian Malagon. The documents are not open to the membership and delegates, making it impossible for them to appeal, because the membership and delegates do not know what is said in the document being appealed.[2] Keeping the report secret is a substantial due process violation of the rights of members and delegates to appeal, in violation of Article 7, Section 12. Charge 2, Specification 2 relies on secret documents and is therefore invalid; it should therefore be voided.
The Libertarian Party Bylaws require all members of the Libertarian National Committee to “respect the vote of delegates at nominating conventions and provide full support for the Party’s nominee for President and nominee for Vice-President.” Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos was providing full support for Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat by submitting their certificate of nomination to the Colorado Secretary of State. An attempt by a state party affiliate or National Committee officer to delay or interfere in submission of the certificate of nomination to the Colorado Secretary of State would be in direct violation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws. Punishing a National Committee member for executing duties required by the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party is contrary to those bylaws, therefore all eight motions that were passed based on that conduct must be voided.
RULING REQUESTED
The requested action of the Judicial Committee is that the decisions of the LNC 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 voided decision, each motion and vote, stating that the decision has been overturned by the Judicial Committee.
The appellant will present the appeal or have the appeal presented by another Sustaining Member of the party.
ATTACHMENT A
The Appellants
AARON GOSS
Aaron Ramos
Adam Neumeyer
Alexander Keller
Amber Howell
Andrea Holt
Andrew Amelang
Andrew Jacobs
Andy Binsley
Angela Thornton
Anthony D’Orazio
Avens O’Brien
Bethany Extine
Brennan Barrington
Brett Borden
Brittany Kosin
Carol Unsicker
Carter Cole
Caryn Ann Harlos
Casey Crowe
Charles Larkin
Chris Powell
Christine Austin
Cody Graves
Colin McKinney
Dan Lewis
Daniel Windham
Danny Dolan
Darin Kinser
Donna Gundle-Krieg
Dustin Coffell
Elizabeth Coquillard
Gail Lightfoot
Glen Lewis
Greg Baldwin
Greg Hertzsch
Greg Perry
Heide Alejandro-Smith
Honor (Mimi) Robson
Howard Blitz
Ilya Schwartzburg
Jack Aiken
Jake Porter
Jami Van Alstine
Janel Holmes
Jason Jawuith
Jeff Coleman
Jocelyn Fry
Joe White
John Morrisey
John Phillips
Joseph Brungardt
Joseph Buchman
Justin Tucker
Keith Thompson
Ken Willey
Kenneth Feagins
Kenneth Mattes
Kevin Kahn
Kevin Litten
Kristin Alexander
Lana Leguia
Laura Owens
Lorenzo Gaztanaga
Luke Lomax
Mark Hinkle
mark tuniewicz
Mary Gingell
Mathew Adams
Matthew Johnson
Michael Fitch
Michael Pakko
Michael R Lopez
Michael Schultheiss
Nathan Madden
Nolan Schmidt
Olivia Hayse
Pauline Phipps
Peter Everett
Phil Gray
Pietro Geraci
Raymond Walden IV
Richard Longstreth
Rose Leatherman
Russell Brooksbank
Ryan Graham
Stephanie Berlin
Stephen Meier
Steve Perkins
Susan Hogarth
Taylor Bakken
Thomas Knapp
Thomas Watercott
Todd Hagopian
Travis Cartwright
Tyler Danke
Tyler Harris
Wayne Harlos
Wendy Hamlin
Y Gillotte
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
My correspondence with the LNC.
From: George Phillies <phillies@4liberty.net>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Chair <chair@lp.org>; Mark Rutherford <mark.rutherford@lp.org>; LP Treasurer <treasurer@lp.org>; LP Secretary <secretary@lp.org>; Adam Haman <adam.haman@lp.org>; Roman Garcia <roman.garcia@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>; Nick Shawhan <nick.shawhan@lp.org>; Jonathan McGee <jonathan.mcgee@lp.org>; Matt Johnson <matt.johnson@lp.org>; Dustin Nanna <dustin.nanna@lp.org>; Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.thompson@lp.org>; Greg Hertzsch <greg.hertzsch@lp.org>; Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>; Adrian Malagon <adrian.malagon@lp.org>; Otto Dassing <otto.dassing@lp.org>; Paul Bracco <paul.bracco@lp.org>; Pat Ford <pat.ford@lp.org>; Ben Weir <ben.weir@lp.org>; Travis Bost <travis.bost@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; Kathy Yeniscavich <kathy.yeniscavich@lp.org>; Robert Vinson <robert.vinson@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew.watkins@lp.org>; apostrophe3 <apostrophe3@gmail.com>
Subject: The Investigative Committee Report
As a Party Life Member, and lead author of an appeal of your recent
actions on Caryn Ann Harlos, you are requested to send me a copy of Mr.
Malagon’s Committee report, so that I may exercise my membership rights
under bylaws Article 7.12 to write a proper appeal to the Judicial
Committee against your actions on Charge 2, Specification 2 of the
report of charges and specifications.
I remind you that appeal documents are, of course, public documents.
———————————————-
Mr. Phillies,
Ms. Harlos objected to the report being released to anyone. Are you asking with her consent?
Meredith Hays
Region 4 Rep, Libertarian National Committee
——————————————————
On 10/14/2024 3:57 PM, Travis Bost wrote:
For what purpose is Mr. D’Orazio cc’d on this email?
Travis L. Bost
LNC At-Large
——————————————————
From: George Phillies <phillies@4liberty.net>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 1:05:28 PM
To: Travis Bost <travis.bost@lp.org>; Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>; Chair <chair@lp.org>; Mark Rutherford <mark.rutherford@lp.org>; LP Treasurer <treasurer@lp.org>; LP Secretary <secretary@lp.org>; Adam Haman <adam.haman@lp.org>; Roman Garcia <roman.garcia@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>; Nick Shawhan <nick.shawhan@lp.org>; Jonathan McGee <jonathan.mcgee@lp.org>; Matt Johnson <matt.johnson@lp.org>; Dustin Nanna <dustin.nanna@lp.org>; Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.thompson@lp.org>; Greg Hertzsch <greg.hertzsch@lp.org>; Adrian Malagon <adrian.malagon@lp.org>; Otto Dassing <otto.dassing@lp.org>; Paul Bracco <paul.bracco@lp.org>; Pat Ford <pat.ford@lp.org>; Ben Weir <ben.weir@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; Kathy Yeniscavich <kathy.yeniscavich@lp.org>; Robert Vinson <robert.vinson@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew.watkins@lp.org>; apostrophe3 <apostrophe3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Investigative Committee Report
So that he is aware of the communication. By the way, my mail system has blind carbon copy, so you actually do not know to whom in toto my message was sent.
——————————————————-
Apologies Madam Chair, I do wish to clear something up for Mr. Phillies since he appears to be confused:
It is not “Mr. Malagon’s Committee report.” It was the Investigatory Committee’s report. The IC was formed by the LNC. The report was unanimously adopted by open session vote and signed by all 5 members of the Committee which is why it was later presented to the LNC.
Adrian F Malagon
Region 4 Alt, Libertarian National Committee
[1] This report was not released to sustaining members of the Libertarian Party, even though it pertained to alleged misconduct in office by a national officer that would be of concern to a sustaining member. The bylaws state that all committees of the National Committee “shall conduct all votes and actions in open session,” which seems inconsistent with a secret report of misconduct. Bylaws, Article 7, Section 15.
[2] The claim that the documents are not open to the membership is proven by my correspondence with the National Committee. Attachment C.
“Keeping the report secret is a substantial due process violation of the rights of members and delegates to appeal, in violation of Article 7, Section 12. Charge 2, Specification 2 relies on secret documents and is therefore invalid; it should therefore be voided.”
This is a novel argument that has merit. However there are lawsuits that the LNC enters into in which the details are secret should all those details be public including strategy so that members may appeal?
Am I misreading or did Ms. Harlos sign onto an appeal where one of the complaints is the non-release of the IC report, when she herself is the sole person objecting to that report’s release?
We are aware of claims that the report is not being released at Ms. Harlos’s request. We have not seen validation of those claims.
George, I do not consent to release of the libelous report. Any part I rely upon in my defense will have implicit consent. My signinging is an affirmation that it deserves to be heard. I know this LNC thinks “rulez are dum” but I don’t.
Signing on serves the same purpose as a seconder. It deserves to be heard. Maybe someone should educate the “interim secretary” on what a majoritity is? Maybe you can do that? I told George I objected to it becuase of the libel of 13 people. You LNC members who want that must be so proud. So functional. So not embarassing.
And before anyone freaks out over the phrase “my attorney” it is Dr. Chuck Moulton who has been a faithful rock to me as one of the first people I got to know well in the Party and is supremely well respected and is known to not to be “yes” man for me. We have disagreed often but always friends and his Party bona fides are impeccable.
If I were going on trial in front of the LNC, Chuck would certainly be the first person I’d call to represent me. One of the most honorable people I every dealt with in the LP.
Yes absolutely. And the fact that Angela just unilaterally decreed she would not give him the opening time he needed just shows her dishonour, “pretend” due process, and imperiousness.
I signed on to this one as due process and bylaws violations make it doomed from the womb. But I still will fully exercise my own automatic appeal rights. The Chair gave away that the fix is in by not even bothering to tell me or you members about an in person meeting in December in RI. There was no vote. Just her decree. She also received medical documentation that I was told capable of preparing adequate defense due to COVID issues which she refused an extension for claiming that pictures of me on social media proved otherwise. My doctor told me to get back into normal life at my speed but I was not mentally out of the brain fog. So she is already violating my due process rights and now states she will not give my attorney adequate time for an opening statement. None of this would cost her a thing to do as she promised “bend over backwards” for fairness. She is conducting a railroad job worse than last time. At least they didn’t pretend. This are her unilateral actions as she acts like a monarch.
Forget all the “sides” this is just wrong and no one would want themselves to be treated this way. It is so blatant.
Apologies still some brain fog, totally incapable of beginning preparation of a serious defense until 10/24.
I also meant to add I developed something I never heard of – COVID rash. It is maddening and due to bone issues I can’t take the steroids needed. Angela I guess would think someone in a coma for more than half of the time got their thirty days. How do you think a Judge will look at this if it gets to this? Yes I did shows and there is evidence of me freezing up. I have copies of letters I wrote during that time and they are embarrassingly bad. Sentences related right after each other, garbled words. It was my Joe Biden moment. Seriously screw sides. If we govern ourselves like this we are unfit to ask for support.
Aren’t involved parliamentarians supposed to stay out of debate pursuant to https://www.parliamentarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/56-Code-of-Professional-Responsibility.pdf? I see you everywhere and it is obvious you are biased and debating.
Ah, the earliest that a hearing could be held is 11/13. The trial is scheduled for 11/9.
If things happened in the other order, the trial might have been avoided, but so what? This appeal is still meaningful.
If the trial goes CAH’s way, this appeal becomes moot.
If the trial goes the LNC’s way, this appeal could vacate it.
The appeal is over LNC decisions that have already been passed by large majorities. For example, the LNC approved of the National Chair trying to sabotage having our candidate on the Colorado ballot.
I think you better wait for the evidence before you say that.
The confession is in one of the specifications.
The confession is in one of the specifications.
Sorry, but it is not. One question will be if there was a legitimate purpose for instructing the secretary not to file.
These opening pronouns are hard to interpret. However, you are absolutely right on something. One of the segments of a competent defense of the LNC’s actions on October 6 will be an explanation of how the McArdle instruction to Harlos could possibly not violate the Bylaws.
I think that is right. It is more concerning that the alleged “impartial” Meesus parliamentarian inserts himself into public debate which appears to violate https://www.parliamentarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/56-Code-of-Professional-Responsibility.pdf
He did the same thing in Michigan and the dozens of other scandals he always seems to be in the middle of.