As received today, 1/12/2025, originally from LNC Judicial CommIttee Chair Ken Krawchuk:|
To: ‘lp-jc-2022@googlegroups.com‘; ‘Angela McArdle’; ‘vicechair@lp.org‘; ‘Tim Hagan’; ‘secretary@lp.org‘; ‘Adam Haman’; ‘Roman Garcia’; ‘Andrew Chadderdon’; ‘Nick Shawhan’; ‘Jonathan McGee’; ‘Matt Johnson’; ‘Dustin Nanna’; ‘Paul Darr’; ‘Keith Thompson’; ‘Greg Hertzsch’; ‘Meredith Hays’; ‘Adrian F Malagon’; ‘Otto Dassing’; ‘Paul Bracco’; ‘Pat Ford’; ‘Ben Weir’; ‘Travis Bost’; ‘Steven Nekhaila’; ‘Kathy Yeniscavich’; ‘Robert Vinson’; ‘Andrew Watkins’; ‘Caryn Ann Harlos’
Subject: RE: [LPJC]
Folks:
Clarifying the Judicial Committee’s email notification transmitted on January 8, 2025, appended below and incorporated by this reference, Article 6.7 does not mention the need for detailed opinions; only that this committee “rule” on an appeal.
Therefore, the Judicial Committee concludes that detailed opinions are not required to order the reinstatement of Caryn Ann Harlos to the position of Secretary.
This notification affirms that this committee orders the immediate reinstatement of Caryn Ann Harlos to the position of Secretary with full duty and rights of the elected position.
Opinions by committee members who issue them will be published and made publicly available in the upcoming days.
Any questions, please let me know.
– Ken
——————————————–
Ken Krawchuk
Chair, National Libertarian Party Judicial Committee
The opinions were released. KangaRoos and Jacobs are going to have to find a new hobby.
The opinions were released.
I agree with Noland’s Duty comment. Though I agree with the judicial committee ruling they should publish the ruling. A one or two sentence statement does not do the membership or the plaintiff justice. Why is it taking so long to publish a proper ruling?
Think about the Supreme Court case Brown vs the Board of Education. A one paragraph ruling would not have done justice to the issues at stake, the plaintiffs, or the American people.
Equating this case to Brown vs. Board of Education is like comparing a tugboat to the Titanic.
The ruling was made. the opinions are optional. The Chair is playing petty sophomoric games. “Fully reinstated” means what it says. Focus on the Chair not meeting the order of full reinstatement.
The issues were all settled in my earlier appeal. The JC decision obliterated any basis for a trial and suspension vote. The current decision can simply refer back to the past one and add ‘and therefore, res ipsa, the suspension is invalid and overturned.’
Their trial was invalid as the Charges and Specifications were voided, and I have remained Secretary this entire time. Detailed opinions were published at that time.
The JC has changed several of its practices this term in response to this situation that have me questioning their fairness and impartiality and the need for a JC that can act arbitrarily.
1) Suspended its rules to not accept new appeal petitions (no emergency mentioned)
2) The secretary sent the notice of the decision, not the chair
3) A scathing minority opinion is sent well ahead of the release of the majority opinion, prejudicing the majority opinion (which still hasn’t arrived after a week of waiting)
4) No bias or conflict of interest issues of JC members are addressed by the board
5) An order is entered without an opinion changing 16 years of customary practices
6) JC members repeatedly berated members and the LNC publicly without comment from the JC undermining the board’s fairness and impartiality
As an LP member, I am confused why the JC would not release a written decision and arbitrarily order the LNC around. I would appreciate some professionalism from the JC members especially when the majority of them are licensed attorneys. Otherwise, why should LP members recognize this JC as a valid body to serve their needs?
I am sure yours is the minority opinion among members that the JC is acting unprofessional.
The JC is not “ordering the LNC around”.
“scathing”, “berated”, “arbitrarily” are subjective.
Your bias is clearly evident.
Did you feel that way when this very same JC affirmed your RFK-JFC debacle, or is it only when things don’t go your way that you change your tune?
TL;DR: things aren’t to my liking, so I’m gonna whine about it.
I am not presently being given full rights and duty. However, I respect that the Chair wished me to explain how that’s the case in full detail. I am giving that measured thought and will be responding in detail today.
If we can’t come to resolution, as Chair has favored before, I suggest mediation but not another LNC member (that can be well intentioned but untenable) but an outside professional mediator. I would be willing to pay (would ask friends to assist) half of any such fees.
There should be no need for mediation. Angela is being sophomoric.
The JC ordered you reinstated with full duties and rights of the position. That includes, at the very least, the secretary@lp email address and your picture posted with the other officers on the LP site.
She will continue to be a sore loser and not include you in internal discussions. That will need to be handled by the rest of the LNC. They should speak out.
I am attempting to take the higher road. I agree with you those are my rights. I have asked the JC to weigh in. I don’t know if they will. I did offer mediation.
Chip Chop, McArdle.
Oh I’ve seen this attitude in appellate courts referred to as per curiam affirmed decision or PCA meaning without a written opinion.
It’s true that the JC can change their custom of providing a written opinion on a whim (and a majority vote according to RONR). However, the JC does the LP an injustice by making such decision on the whim or caprice of the JC. This procedure is arbitrary, capricious, and irrational.
Cry harder.