Third Party Watch has received and, in the best interests of the open press as seen in the Pentagon Papers and Progressive cases, hereby publishes what we are advised is the full report of the LNC Investigative Committee on the matter of Caryn Ann Harlos.
The report expresses the opinion of the report’s authors, not of this newspaper, and is published here as an important part of the historical record.
We have read the report and do not see reasons why it should not have been made available promptly to he Libertarian Party’s membership.
I’m going to frame my comment around the following: contracts, ethics, and honor.
When a national party is formed, contracts are made with the various state affiliates. This contract between a state party in the national party requires at the state party place the nationally selected nominees on the ballot in their state. It also requires the national party to manage the selection of those nominees through a process, usually a convention, in which all affiliates participate and agree upon their selection.
Through the process of bylaws, the national party is then required to enforce this contract on all states, with penalties for failing to, if legally possible for them to do, place the nominees on the ballot. Every real national party has some form of contract, bylaws, and penalties.
This is why, in the case of libertarian party, the national party expends large amounts of money to retain or gain ballot access in states that do not have mechanisms in their law that are reasonable and allow them to remain on the ballot from one election cycle to another.
The logical extension of each of these contracts is that they protect the other states from the actions of a few rogue states who will not accept the decision at convention and want to run another candidate. They cannot justtake their marbles and go home, much as a spoiled brat wood on the playground if he or she was losing.
The national chair, along with some members of the LNC, conspired with the state party of Colorado to violate this contract. This is very clear from the evidence. In my opinion, the other states who upheld their contract could actually have legal action against these bad actors. It is not the state of Colorado that could sue, it is other states, such as South Carolina or Minnesota, or anyone you want to pick that upheld the contract.
Where do ethics come into this? Other research and reporting has indicated that there may be motive of financial gain on the part of some of the participants. Regardless of any legal implications, these actors violated the ethical standards that their elected party office requires them to uphold. They are unethical, and deserve to be treated as such either through removal or the election process at their party’s next national convention.
By taking these actions to subvert the process, the chair, her associates on the LNC who cooperated, and the members of the Colorado State party who worked with them, have stained the honor of all of the state parties as well as the national party.
So in various forms, this is morally, ethically, and legally corrupt. Arguments about whether the state party could replace the nominees make no sense. They agreed to form a national party years ago, and in the case of Colorado I believe they were the first state.
Reading this report shows just how corrupt the Libertarian National Committee has become. It is a shame and a stain on your party that may take years to wipe away.
I am glad I have disassociated myself from this organization. I wish you luck, but I don’t believe this is recoverable.
You are correct Stewart and it’s all BS corruption.
Good analysis.
No, there is no obligation under the national bylaws for an affiliate to put a presidential ticket on the ballot.
The affiliate cannot put someone else on the ballot. They can say, “We won’t support anyone.”
That is the opinion of D Frank Robinson, who wrote the bylaws.
So you agree that Colorado could not put Kennedy on the ballot.
I haven’t followed this situation with Ms. Harlos and the LNC closely.
Someone I reached out to (not a known member of the Mises Caucus) framed it this way:
“LP of Colorado is a separate legal entity from the LNC.
State of Colorado recognizes the LP of Colorado’s right to name electors.
LP of Colorado’s elected leadership didn’t want electors pledged to Chase Oliver to appear on the Colorado ballot.
Ms. Harlos, acting as LNC Secretary, took it upon herself to submit electors not chosen by LP of Colorado, against the orders of the Chair of the LNC.
Her action constituted intentional interference with the legal right of
the LP of Colorado to designate their slate of electors.
This potentially could lead to a lawsuit by plaintiff LP of Colorado against defendant LNC.
LNC’s remedies against a state party not running electors pledged to the LNC’s presidential candidate are limited. Disaffiliation would be one.
Therefore, no matter how well-intentioned Ms. Harlos’ action may have been, it exceeded her authority as Secretary, and the LNC has the right to discipline her. Good intentions may be a mitigating circumstance, as would remorse on Ms. Harlos’ part, in deciding what action to take against her.”
Is this framing true or have facts been omitted or altered?
The LPCO bylaws prevent them from selecting a presidential and vice presidential candidate and not just suggest, like it explicity states thoze office cannot be filled by the vacany committee. This is effectivley a poison pill the state party built into the bylaws locking them into the National Party pick.
It’s false.
The state of Colorado doesn’t care who files electors for a candidate. Ask Frank Atwood. LP of Colorado doesn’t have the right to name them, but it has done so in the past. Colorado state law is silent on the issue for third parties.
Oliver submitted the Electors, not Harlos. Harlos only submitted the nomination paperwork that the Secretary of State requires to be signed by either the national Chair or the Secretary.
LP of Colorado tried to bind electors to Kennedy and not Oliver at their August 12 meeting. They can’t do that.
LP of Colorado tried to nominate Kennedy post-convention. They can’t do that, either.
Whomever your source is has a lot of facts wrong. Bet that they don’t live there, either.
The electors that were submitted were NOT the ones chosen at the LPCO convention under the LPCO Bylaws. Ms. Harlos indicated that in her now dismissed lawsuit against the LPCO.
Wouldn’t it have been a by-laws violation for the LP of CO to place a candidate on its ballot who lost at the national convention and who was running against the candidate who won at the national convention, especially since that candidate was running under different party labels in other states?
The LP of New Mexico placed a different presidential ticket on the ballot, but the LP of New Mexico had disaffiliated with the LNC well before the national convention and the group that disaffiliated did not participate at the 2024 LP National Convention.
The LP of Colorado never disaffiliated and did participate in the 2024 National Convention, where none of its delegates voted for RFK Jr. to be the presidential nominee. Even if all of its delegates had vpted for RFK Jr. to be the nominee it still would not have justified giving him the LP of CO’s ballot line because he still would have not won the nomination at the Libertarian National Convention, but the fact that RFK Jr. got ZERO.votes from the Colorado delegation makes them look even worse for trying to put hik on the ballot instead of the actual candidate who won the nomination.
Facts omitted. The SoS attorney said CO law allows campaign to submit electors. Harlos or Chair sending in form is required by CO law to have candidate. LNC required to support candidates which includes sending in forms.
IMO, it would be a violation of the national bylaws (14.1) to put someone other than the presidential nominee on the ballot. That is not the elector issue, however.
The electors are elected by the LPCO at a convention. They are required to vote for the candidate with the most votes.
Note that the LPCO did not submit the name of any one not the nominee, so there was no actual violation. They did adopt a motion to do so, however.
“Mr. Malagon was a member and State Organizer for the National Mises Caucus until his
removal on July 15, 2024. The removal process included stripping him of his state
organizer status and privileges, as well as removing him from all sensitive internal
communications.”
Says removal instead of resignation. And this is self-reported.
Wasn’t this report forbboden from release by Mrs. Harlos? Did she authorize its release?
Look up “Pentagon Papers” and “Progressive Case”. We are a newspaper.
Except that a newspaper has ink that comes off when you touch it or hold it. And you can wrap fish in it when you’re done reading it.
Most people do not wrap fish with iPhones or androids, although I suppose you could take two tablets and put the fish between them.
So does that mean I am a news reporter?
All joking aside, third-party watch and independent political report are legitimate news entities.
But since this report has already been leaked publicly, I believe Dr. Phillies’ intent in publishing it here is part of the historical timeline of the events.
I am a full blown transparency kind of person so I am 100% behind Dr. Phillies in publishing this and makes me glad to be a reader and occasional contributor to this publication. The more any entity tries to hide the harder we should all be trying to pull it into the light. Corruption dies in daylight.
Interesting proposition.
I hereby forbid the release of Sonic The Hedgehog 3!
Of course, I neither created nor own that movie, but apparently the magical power of forbodden gets around that somehow.
There IS a Sonic The Hedgehog 3?? Who knew!
Apparently there is — I’m getting roped into going to see it tomorrow.
I did not and do not consent to its publication for four reasons:
Contrary to Justice and our rules I was not interviewed on likely half the things in it which is grossly negligent and against RONOR
I was libeled
My husband was libeled
The CO electors are accused of a felony which is libel
In fairness you should include a link to where my responses are:
https://lpedia.org/wiki/In_re:_Suspension_of_LNC_Secretary_Caryn_Ann_Harlos
I answer, including a lie detector test, the libel.
You do not consent because it tells the truth that you committed misconduct.
So much for transparency Caryn Ann.
I’m tired of the LP having to waste money because of frivolous charges and suits like this.
Yeah I am not seeing this misconduct you keep saying is so plain and obvious. Granted I think they could have properly removed her under “legitimate” charges based upon the bylaws, but this LNC like the last one didn’t bother because it requires showing how petty and pathetic they both were, so they each tried to do it as far behind closed doors as possible.
Thats a fair shot on transparency imo, and Caryn Ann knows I would challenge her on this except under the most extreme circumstances..
If you are tired of the LP burning money on frivolous suits then get behind getting rid of McArdle, imo it is her ineffective and incompetent leadership that that brought us here, not CAH being a pain in the ass sometimes. (and as a side note the mises caucus loved her PITA manner when it was working for them, but what they fail to underatand is people who actually try to follow principles don’t bend their principles to support a friend who is in the wrong.)