We have additional news here: LNC Questions Asked. LNC Response.
Caryn Ann Harlos awaits restoration of her privileges as LNC Secretary. Quoting from her X.com page, dated January 7, 2:33PM:
“I requested my full LNC member rights to access be restored last night. It was late, understandable not done immediately. But it is not hard and I still do not. I will write again this evening but surely the LNC will not disregard the JC which is ultimately what the Michigan lawsuit was about. I ask you POLITELY ask my full rights be restored as this is now approaching Bylaws violation and contempt of JC.”
One of our many sources on the LNC has supplied us with a message sent it by one of its members:
From: Keith Thompson <keith.thompson@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 6:58:28 PM
Subject: Re: Please restore my email, teams, and google access this evening or by tomorrow morning
But we have now had forwarded to us a response from a prominent LNC member:
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 11:18:26 PMSubject: Re:
My appeal was an automatic appeal, there were no signatures, so no idea why that even came up, and it certainly cannot be justification for not reinstating me on Tuesday. The decision came out after EOB on Monday so that is understandable it was not immediately on Monday. But it is now Wednesday. If there was some difficulty, it should have been communicated to me, but only silence.
As far as signors to past appeals, the JC already denied that, and the time to challenge signatures is past. Since the JC already denied this demand in the past, it seems settled. I can’t speak for appeals anyone else might be involved in or assisting, but any present appeals have met both thresholds, and the JC can independently verify the requisite 10% of delegates. The decision is ultimately up to them however.
How does the JC independently verify that the delegates are the actual delegates signing or sustaining members which seems to be changing all the time as well as that they are the people they are?
Isn’t it impossible to challenge “signatures” if the JC won’t say to anyone who’s signing?
Is the LNC entitled to receive the list of signors? I wonder whether they can invent any plausible-sounding justification for wanting it that makes it seem like their purpose wouldn’t simply be retaliation against those members.
TLDR; the JC has been inconsistent in their published decisions on the standing of the petitioners to bring appeal.
The LP Bylaws state that “upon appeal by” the “delegates credentialed at the most recent regular convention” or “sustaining members” can a JC appeal of an LNC decision be initiated.
The JC rules state that each petition “shall identify” the “verifiable identity” of each member petitioning for the requested ruling.
The JC rules also state that “The Committee may by a majority vote redact portions of the petition(s) and response(s) and amici so made available, to protect personally-identifiable and other sensitive information.”
In order to sustain the action, the JC is required to verify that the petition signers are qualified to appeal to the JC. But the JC does not have this data, the LNC Secretary and staff has this information to verify.
No recent decision has discussed how the signers were verified or when, why or how the identities of signers are protected. In the four JC decisions that have been published so far this year, the decisions state about the validity of the signers:
JC_Opinon_Harlos_v._LNC_08092024.pdf
Validity of Appeal
The petition is in adequate form and bears the requisite number of appellants. No allegations of error, fraud or insufficiency have been put forward, thus the petition meets all necessary qualification and the appeal is properly brought.
LPWI v. LNC 08152024.pdf
Standing
4. Petitioners has provided 135 unconfirmed signatures of credentialed national convention Delegates. 117 of them are confirmed as credentialed Delegates. 10% of 997 credentialed Delegates is 100. Signature threshold has been met in accordance with Article 7, Section 12 of the national Bylaws. Standing has been established.
JC-opinion-d’orazio-v-lnc-revised-summary-2.pdf
No such language exists in this decision about the petition meeting its appeal requirements.
Judicial-Committee-Phillies-vs-LNC.pdf (found only on Third Party Watch because it is not available on LPEDIA)
Standing
2. Petitioners have provided over the required 10% of 937 credentialed delegates (94). Signature threshold has been met in accordance with 7-12. Standing has been established.
Incorrect. The Judicial Committee in fact does have the Convention Delegates list, so it is possible to verify them, and it has been done. It is also done on each appeal. How do I know this? I’m the one who does the verifying for rest of the Judicial Committee.
However, it is not incumbent upon the Judicial Committee to release the list of signatories to the LNC, or to anyone else. The list of signatories solely exists for the appellees to establish their right of appeal, and that determination falls to the Judicial Committee, not the LNC. The Judicial Committee may release a redacted list, but it is under no obligation to do so, and so far it has not.
If the list of signatories were sustaining members instead of national convention delegates, then it would be necessary for the Judicial Committee to obtain a list of sustaining members from LP staff to verify. To this point that has not been necessary.
That’s all part of processing the appeals to determine standing and jurisdiction.
Since they could object to fraudulent names, yes, they are entitled to a list. In the immediate case, only one name is needed, the appellant.