Good afternoon,
My name is Keith Thompson, and I serve as an alternate representative for Super Region 3 to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). Additionally, I have been the communications officer for the Louisiana affiliate for over a decade. I was one of the votes cast against the removal of Caryn Ann Harlos, as I felt then, as I do now, that the LNC did not have proper cause for such an action.
While you have undoubtedly received numerous emails on this hearing, with strong opinions on both sides, I do not believe the matter at hand is particularly complex.
The LNC voted to remove Caryn Ann for several reasons, none of which rise to the level of valid cause. I would note that my state affiliate board has passed resolutions in support of Caryn Ann against these charges and thanking her for her actions to support our nominees.
The only cause remotely approaching validity relates to Caryn Ann’s actions in helping our Presidential campaign secure ballot access in Colorado. I commend her for those actions. They would constitute gross malfeasance only if they were done with intent to harm the Party—something clearly not the case, as both the intent and the outcome were positive. This is further evidenced by our 2024 Presidential nominee and his campaign manager expressing gratitude for her efforts.
The Judicial Committee has already carefully examined the charges and found them lacking. I will not repeat their exhaustive analysis but will instead emphasize my agreement with the JC’s majority ruling, which found that the charges did not constitute valid cause for suspension.
It logically follows that if the charges were invalid for suspension, they must also be invalid for removal. If anything, removal should have an even higher threshold. To remove someone based on charges deemed insufficient for suspension would be entirely illogical.
I would add that I did not vote for Caryn Ann’s reelection. She and I have not always agreed and may very well clash on issues in the future. However, that is the nature of the political process. Contrary to the LNC’s recent examples, adults should be able to disagree and remain civil. These disagreements, even strong ones, are no basis for removal if we are to remain the Party of Principle. Such decisions are wisely left to delegates at convention, not the LNC itself.
There are numerous facets to this case – rude social media posts, FEC filings raising concern of conflicts, the derivative suit, and others – but these are distractions. The simple matter remains that under the policy manual and the bylaws as they stood at the time, there was not just cause to remove Caryn Ann Harlos.
The LNC’s subsequent updates to the policy manual cannot retroactively justify her removal. Retroactive rule changes are fundamentally unjust. If a state were to enact such practices, we would rightly decry them.
I urge the committee to remain focused on this straightforward issue. You have already wisely ruled that the charges did not meet the threshold for suspension. It naturally follows that these same charges cannot justify removal.
Thank you kindly for your time and consideration.
In Liberty,
Keith Thompson
He is regional alt. They cannot touch him.
Under their new rule, that allows any member of the LNC to be removed, they can.
Alternates cannot vote if the representative is present and voting, but they are members of the committee. I know that debate has been going on for years, but they are. Other than voting and sitting at the table if the member is present, there is no difference.
They participate in discussions on the mailing list. They receive all other “confidential” handouts at the in person meetings. They are present in executive session, which is limited to members of the committee. They do not have to ask to be present, and walk in along with all other members of the committee.
So I would argue that he could be removed under their new Policy manual rule.
Not per bylaws. Untouchable.
Also that new rule violates the bylaws no matter how clever Malagon and Jacobs thinks they are. The JC is on Christmas break but there is/will be appeal on it. It is also masks off authoritarian.
Of course it does. But they don’t really care.
Haven’t you figured out the game yet? They are just using delaying tactics while they siphon off money. Based on comments we have seen, this probably goes down to the state level in at least several state parties.
I doubt that they are all on the take, but somebody is…
This reeks of mob. I still say RICO.
The JC, in their last ruling, said that CAH could be recharged.
“If the IC report does indicate conduct that may reasonably be characterized as gross malfeasance or failure to perform the duties of office, in addition to meeting a standard of “cause” in Robert’s, the LNC would be able to prefer amended charges and specifications based on the existing report.”
That does not mean they should.
So it appears that there is at least one other member of the LNC who still thinks rationally and has ethics and morals. For a short while I was afraid it was just Mr. Redpath by himself.
Our thanks to Mr. Thompson, for daring to point out the empress‘s clothing, or rather lack of. Unfortunately, he may face retaliation and removal under their new rules.