The hearing went on for four hours. There are references to amici filings. I made inquiries, and thank Chuck Moulton and Jonathan Jacobs, who both promptly responded to my inquiries and told me where to find the filings. There are around 30 of these, not counting various filings made by Caryn Ann Harlos and the LNC. You can find all the filings here. Readers will note that many of these filings were made in the few days before the Judicial Committee met.
My notes follow:
Meeting began.
Ken Krawchuk chaired. All JC members were present. 35 people were present. JC will not be accepting appeals from 12/12/24 to 1/4/25, other than suspension appeals.
Presenting for the apellant are Dr. Moulton and Caryn Ann Harlos. Presenting for the defense are McArdle, Jacobs, McGee, and available for questioning Malagon.
Moulton presented for Harlos. Moulton: Facts, Law, and Public Policy are on Harlos’s side. Refers to my appeal: JC said all specifications and charges are invalid. JC voided the motion creating a trial.
LNC violated JC decision.Qs for JC to ask: Did the LNC discuss the derivative suit?
Moulton discusses what “cause” is.
McArdle says there was a trial and due process. Claims Harlos files a suit and complaints against an attorney and a parliamentarian. McArdle speaks very quickly. Says the LNC did the right things. Says many LNC members submitted amici.
Up to 43 participants. McGee claims that the issue is not that Harlos submitted the Colorado document but the circumstances surrounding the submission. McGee discusses events over the Summer in Colorado. McGee says Harlos tried to obstruct the IC and LNC.
Jacobs argues that Harlos tried to obstruct the investigatory committee by sending tweets.
Now questions from JC
Kinsella: asks if changing the standards in the employment manual can violate ex post facto restrictions.Moulton No.
Kinsella asks why Harlos asked.
Kinsella to McArde: Are you asking to overrule the Phillies decision.. McArdle: No.
Kinsella: For permanent removal, do you need a trial?
McARdle argues that a trial is not required. McArdle says the IC report is still evidence for action. She indicates that the report was sent to the JC before the Phillies trial.
McArdle: 2/3 of the body was moving in lockstep…they wanted to remove Harlos by hook or by crook.
Kinsella: is there an ex post facto issue if the LCN removed Harlos under the bylaws standard rather than the policy manual standard. McArdle: We removed her under a high threshhold.
K: Who approved ordering Harlos not to file. McArdle, the reconciilation committee,… McARdle:Me under my authority from the Bylaws.
Montoni: Claim that Harlos had to struggle to find the CO SoS form. Montoni says it was trivial to find. Montoni asks the basis for the claim that it was difficult to find the form. McArdle avoids a direct answer.
Montoni: State law trumps our bylaws. State form says either may sign. McARdle says Harlos filing made unnecessary work.
Tarnoff: You said Harlos did gross malfeasance as defined by the Phillies opinion. McARdle:Yes
Tarnoff: We ruled that the charges and specifications were not gross malfeasance. Were there other issues that were gross malfeasance? McArdle: Yes.
Tarnoff: So there was conduct in the IC report that was worse than what was in teh specification? McArdle: Yes.
Tarnoff: Then whywas that conduct not alleged. McArdle says there were worse items. Derivative lawsuit was filed before the IC report came out.
Tarnoff: Main point in Phillies opinion was that specifications failed to provide evidence for gross malfeasance. Response passed to Jacobs: He agrees that Harlos was undercharged. There were things that constitute gross malfeasance. She obstructed the investigation, which damaged the party.
Jacobs: the acts are covered by the specification.
McArdle: Some things we cannot say without breaking attorney-client privilege.
Tarnoff: The IC report is not the specifications. You must allege the malfeasance in specifications.
Apparently Harlos has a first amendment complaint and is being responded with a claim that there was perjury. There was an interruption by an unmuted member of teh audience.
Latham: Can the LNC apply its new standard for suspension to something that happened before the new standard was adopted?
McArdle: Yes, it can. Also, the bad conduct is ongoing.
Moulton:The new standard can be applied prospectively, not retroactively. There ws a new brief presented an hour before trial. We have not had much time to read it.
Harlos: My lawsuit language is coming up a great deal even though it was supposedly not influencing the IC report.
Latham: Q to Moulton. Can teh LNC action of November stand independently of the voided decisions, voided in the Phillies case.
Harlos: Delegates decided that there was a continuing breach of the bylaws, so they could overturn the 2021 removal. As the charges were invalidated, the trial was void.
Recording is being interrupted by crazy people posting pornography. Number of viewers is soaring.
Can the November 9 trial exist independent of the of charges and specifications. Delay while antitrolling precautions are installed.
Jacobs: To restore an officer, you need to go through a process to restore him.
Moulton: Harlos could have told people that she was filing with the CO SoS before she did it.
Latham: was there an NDA requiring Harlos to keep her filing action secret?
Harlos: CO started fundraising for another candidate. At that point reconciliation was obviously over. Campaign asked us to submit. Co SoS office asked me to submit the form. There was an issue of slow-rolling the CO papers until after the write-in deadline.
There is an extended discussion about submitting papers to Secretaries of State.
Latham: Which standard was used on November 9: The bylaws standard or the policy manual standard? Jacobs: I believe that the removal was done under the bylaws standard. However, I believe that the gross malfeasance standard was satisfied.
Moulton: The policy Manual standard was satisfied. There was a trial transcript made in executive session, which Harlos and Moulton were not allowed to receive. The LNC voted to permit the transcript to be made. The LNC is claiming that they implicitly suspended the Policy Manual standard in favor of the bylaws standard.
McArdle: We are not aware of the Richard Brown opinion. Brown is not the party parliamentarian, just the convention parliamentarian. The party retained Jacobs as the parliamentarian for this issue.
Latham: How should the JC interpret the change in the standards for removal of an officer.
Latham: How does the suspension affect the derivative lawsuit? Moulton: We maintain that the suspension was a pretext to interfere with the derivative lawsuit.
Latham: Were any of the reasons for removing her valid? Moulton: No.
Harlos sept 12 I sent demand letter to LNC Sept 19: My attorneys sent demand letter. Oct 1: Derivative suit filed. If I am to defend myself, I need to know the reasons. If there is a suit, at least one LNC member will testify that McArdle said during the executive session that we had to remove Harlos to block the derivative suit.
Harlos: There were other covert reasons for removing me. I left the Mises Caucus. I opposed the Kennedy Joint Fundraising Committee.
Latham: Were you asked about these covert issues during the trial. Harlos no.
McArdle: We did not advance to suspend because of the lawsuit. I will ask you overturn the findings of the Phillies appeal. We had strong reasons for removing her. She is a destructive force.
I am seeing references to other amicus briefs. I will attempt to obtain these.
Krawchuk to Moulton: Why didn’t you mention the order from the chair to the secretary? Moulton: Chair asked Harlos not to do her job. This was not a legitimate instruction. It would have been misfeasance. It was her job to respond to questions.
Disagreement as to whether or not the chair’s order to the secretary was legitimate.
Krawchuck: Policy manua; says you can remove someone for failure for failure to perform the duties of the office. How many duties are needed to be missed?
Some agreement that it is a judgement call.
Seebeck: Did secretary open or prevent CO litigation. McArdle: LPCO sent us two cease and desist letters. Jacobs: Thought that what LPCO was proposing violated the bylaws.
McArdle: If we have a way to avoid being sued, it is good to avoid the suit.
Harlos: Multiple suits were possible. Colorado threat was not plausible.
Stratton: Not clear if filing teh form was a duty of teh Secretary. McArdle: It’s not in the bylaws. I ordered her not to file.
Harlos: It is in the Bylaws. Chair said form would only be sent to the state chair, who said she would never file it. Chair was in breach of duty.
Moulton: Something must be done with forms.Signing them is not adequate.
McArdle: Secretary hid things from the rest of us. Filing was not her duty. Harlos: It was my duty. This is not gross malfeasance.
Stratton: Why did you ask the CO SoS to withdraw the electors. McArdle: There was an election fraud threat because the wrong electors were submitted. CO SoS turned the request down. The electors who were submitted were with one exception not the electors selected by the state convention. Harlos: I had nothing to do with the elector submission. State law says the Presidential campaign can offer a list of electors. Harlos says that LPCO Board voided some of the electors chosen by their convention.
Kinsella: Q for Jacobs: Do you agree that absent a policy manual requirement for a trial a trial is not needed.Jacobs: Roberts would require a trial. Policy manual can change this.
Kinsella: In the Phillies appeal, how were we supposed to decide if the charges are legitimate if the IC document was secret and the trial was in executive session? McArdle: That’s a problem. I hope you revisit the Phillies appeal decision.
Moulton: You need to see the trial transcript. The Executive session for the trial violated the bylaws.
Montoni: Why would it not be the job of the Secretary and Chair to send out the certificates so soon as the vote has happened. McArdle: That was 20 years ago.
McArdle: the LPCO never tried to file for Kennedy.
McArdle claims there was massive sabotage of institutional function. No one passed institutional memory down to me.
Harlos: We did not have a database of State Secretaries of States.
Moulton: There were people who could have been asked. There were minutes. Officers could have asked questions.
Tarnoff: Did you take the slow-walk issue to the reconciliation committee or the LNC? Harlos: No. The State Committee acted first.
Editorial: We appear to be mostly off topic here.
Chair: Reconciliation committee had no chair. I appointed the reconciliation committee. Chair claims Harlos resigned from that committee. Harlos denied this.
Tarnoff: Was there ever a point of order that the trial was invalid because there were no charges?
Tarnoff: Does Roberts forbid ex post facto rules? Moulton: Not clear.
Tarnoff: Is a motion invalid if someone was prevented from voting?
Tarnoff: What about preventing a member from participating?
Signal dropout
Haman is claiming the committee has the authority to forcibly recuse two members, should do so, and failing that the meeting is invalid.
Jacobs: Recusal is voluntary.
Montoni: Why is institutional memory an issue, thanks to the internet? Why were staff that were let go not interviewed before they departed? Malagon notes that California creates problems.
Montoni: Why is institutional memory an excuse?
Jacobs: Internet sources are sometimes unreliable.
Malagon wonders why Tarnoff questions are relevant to the trial.
Malagon says Montoni should recuse himself.
We move to closing arguments. Moulton lists many faults of the decision. Jacobs says that executive session was needed.
Malagon: The LNC wants the JC to vacate the Phillies decision. Malagon notes that LNC members submitted addtional amicus briefs.
Tarnoff: On what basis would we overturn the Phillies report?
Jacobs: The statements were moot.
This doesn’t make sense.
If the JC overturned CAH suspension, they can’t then allow LNC to permanently remove her.
Removal should require more evidence of wrongdoing than suspension. And the evidence for suspension was deemed to be lacking.
The JC got the evidence, in the IC report.
I remember hearing that LPCO was fundraising for themselves not for another candidate followingt their announcement to both not anyone on or Kennedy. May want to correct that.
The timeline seems clear that Harlos resigned the reconciliation committee AFTER the LPCO announced their “partnership” with Kennedy. Meaning, she was on the reconciliation cmte for weeks following the LPCO announcement that they wouldn’t place Chase on the ballot there. It’s easy to mess up dates but the point was being made that a cutoff of communications by Harlos to the rest of the reconciliation cmte or the LNC on the matter of her actions was the intention.
Harlos is a firebrand. She takes risks. Sometimes she does get it right like in NH and DE. She’s took a risk this time acting unilaterally in Colorado knowing she’d face accountability measures from the LNC. This is brave and brash.
However, there is a limit to the usefulness of simply being brave and brash. Rather than work it out, she escalated every opportunity in her defense against the LNC. This behavior alone makes me think that she’s acting above any measure of accountability and above the reproach of her board colleagues. This isn’t risky anymore it’s intentional conflict.
I resigned on 7/2 and did my job. Period. Have a good night!
You committed gross misconduct. Please, take a hint and stop wasting the party’s time and money. Run again in 2026, or apply for the open vice chair position.
I did not deny resigning from Reconciliation Commmittee. I denied resigning in the way the Chair described as “before all this happened” – which I took as before the CO situation exploded. She could have meant that differently but we never got there. I resigned publicly (why would I deny that?? and it is in minutes) AFTER the CO situation blew up.
If that line of questioning was not dropped, the Chair could have clarified what she meant differently, and I could have explained what I meant. But I definitely resigned from the Committee, it was the circumstances I denied.