Meeting called to order at 5:10. Each side has several non-LNC representatives for the trial.
Absent are Nanna, Johnson, Shawhan, Bracco, Darr, Redpath. Nekhala arrived late.
Harlos tries to make a point of order, and is told she is not allowed to do so.
Chair recognizes McGee for an extended executive session motion. Motion says that if Harlos chooses to be represented by counsel, only the counsel may speak. That is, Harlos may not participate in her own defense if she has counsel. Hays seconded.
Harlos attempts to protest that she is not being allowed to speak in her own defense because she has counsel (Chuck Moulton) — which is why I was sure the motion meant what it appeared to say — and is muted.
Clarification from an LNC member: “She was allowed to speak as a witness, but not in the same capacity as counsel.”
Roll-call vote on calling the question.
No-Thompson
All others eligible vote yes, including Rutherford.
Vote on the Executive Session motion.
No – Hertzsch, Thompson
Abstain-Rutherford, McArdle (Nekhaila said that he just arrived, was unclear on exactly what was being voted upon, so he abstained.)
They are now in executive session.
At the end of the day, the Mises Caucus and Radicals and the Prags who all left the party can at least agree on one thing: nobody wants to be on a committee with Caryn Ann.
I’ve been on committees with Caryn Ann. I’d be delighted to be on committees with Caryn Ann again.
LOL that is why nearly everyone who has been on a committee with me says what Tom says and I am elected Chair of nearly every committee I have been on. All the bylaws meetings are online. I invite you to give ONE example of an issue. And Tom you too are wonderful to be on committees with.
It was a railroad job with many violations that will be outlined in my appeal. As I have a short time to prepare that is my concentration next few days.
Except it wasn’t. You blatantly committed gross misconduct. You refuse to have documents released for threat of a lawsuit. Why not release these?
Please, take some time away from the party. Focus on your parliamentary business.
Failing to respect McArdle’s authoritah and disturbing her well being is not gross misconduct. “Exposing the LNC to litigation” from an unknown entity for unknown transgressions might be but, has never been explained so far as I have seen. And “violating the autonomy of the LPCO” by ensuring the LPCO did not violate the bylaws also fails to qualify as gross misconduct.
And the standard isn’t gross misconduct. It is gross malfeasance. Extremely high burden they did not meet. This high burden was made to avoid this type of situation where a super majority can’t stand any dissent. But when a group doesn’t care about rules, nothing can protect you. Writing my appeal now.
The LNC is already exposed to even more litigation (not from me) from multiple angles. It is a fact of political life.
That isn’t even what this was about. Please do try to keep up and how can you know it wasn’t when it was in secret? I think your own suggestion would do you good.
You’re assuming your conclusion and not providing any support for it.
I’m not sure how a defendant from a secret trial held in executive session could give any evidence here to support a claim that the trial had mistakes and did not meet the burden of proof required by the bylaws.
Saying it did not meet the burden of proof does not violate the secrecy of the trial, and is a certainly allowable public statement. We can expect that a lot of this information will become public if the judicial committee holds a public review of the appeal. I think that is the only way anyone is going to see evidence from either side.
I know, I am repeating myself, but I think this is important. And it is certainly just my opinion. I know three of the seven members of the judicial committee. All three of them are longtime members of the Libertarian Party, and my observation has always been that they are all upstanding and have solid ethics when it comes to anything within the political arena. I will assume that the other four are as well and that they will return a correct decision based on the evidence, the actions of both sides, and the bylaws. I have no idea what that will be, but I assume it will be done properly.
Until then, everyone just has to wait.
Article 6, 7 National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee, excepting the officer that is the subject of the vote who may not participate that vote.
REDPATH WAS NOT PRESENT
They got 2/3 of the entire LNC without Redpath. It was 11-3, with Redpath not present, Angela abstaining (since her vote made no difference) and CAH unable to vote. 2/3 of 16 rounded up is 11, they had 11. And presumably Redpath would have voted no, and not being present at all is functionally equivalent to a no vote when a fraction of the whole LNC is required.
It is 2/3 of the entire membership of the LNC, excluding the charged officer; that is 16.
11 yes votes were required. 2/3 is 10 2/3 votes, or, in whole numbers, 11 or more votes.
IIRC, Redpath had previously stated that he had a prior commitment and could not attend.
Another point, which may at first seem silly, but might be very important. I noticed that according to this report, quite a few members are not present for this meeting.
For the sake of discussion, we will assume that a quorum is present. But are 2/3 or more present? That would be 2/3 after removing the defendant from the count of members allowed to vote.
If not, a successful removal vote is not possible. The libertarian party bylaws state that suspension requires 2/3 of the full Committee.
So unless the number of people voting to suspend is 2/3…and with the long list of non-attendees shown above, that might be questionable… Well… I think everyone gets my point.
And we know that it only matters as a prop for the political theater. Thats why they wanted the main show to a closed theater, they are bad actors and it would show. So they came out did what they feel is good enough to look good and ultomatley are just doing what they want, what mcardle wants. Atleast the JBH LNC didn’t silence the memebership when they did what they did atleast not to this degree.
Enough people were there. In the end, Redpath was absent and Darr’s alternate was present.
No offense meant in this comment, but it is possible that preventing her from speaking in her own defense may give her a better chance.
Most of the LNC is already convinced that they want to get rid of her, so a defense from a third-party might actually keep things calmer.
And if she is asked succinct, and to the point questions — as I would expect — then brief answers would not hurt her case.
This was easily predictable. It is exactly how kangaroo courts operate. Although usually the defense councel is a stooge appointed by the court. In this case, there is a very qualified person present.
If he is smart, he will call her as a witness and ask her questions. And I know Chuck is smart. I would like to see how they stop that without losing what minor amount of credibility they might hope to salvage from this debacle.
They limited how much time can be spent on questioning each witness. The limit is short.
Chuck was wonderful and in fact so wonderful that any outsider who should have gotten to observe would have been shocked.