As a public service, Third Party Watch is providing a path to sign a Judicial Committee appeal against the recent LNC actions attacking Caryn Ann Harlos, largely for doing her job as Secretary.
You can sign the appeal at https://form.jotform.com/242868268003056
This is not an “I like Caryn Ann” message. This is a ‘the LNC is out of control’ message. I am not a fan of Caryn Ann’s approach to doing internal politics, though it appears to be well meaning. The Michigan lawsuit, in my opinion, is ill-advised. However, the lead accusation against her is that she put Oliver and Ter Maat on the Colorado ballot, when McArdle ordered her not to. She did the right thing. McArdle violated party bylaws. The LNC actions, on which we have already reported, violated party bylaws in many different ways.
You may think that the appeal is unlikely to work. If the appeal is not filed, I can guarantee that it will fail. There are a variety of ways in which the appeal will help the party, some less obvious than others.
I realize that some of you are not fond of me. While I am organizing the effort, and did most of the writing of the appeal document, the presenter at the JC hearing will be a prominent life member who is an experienced trial lawyer and who is intimately familiar with our bylaws.
In case it is not clear, we are not appealing a hypothetical motion to remove Harlos as Secretary. We are appealing a series of decisions that the LNC has already made by roll-call vote. Under the Bylaws one may appeal decisions, and we are appealing a series of them.
As of noon on 10-15 TPW states the appeal is a DRAFT.
It is in draft form. “Draft” can differ from “Final Form.”
It is most likely best for anyone not to sign or endorse
a draft. Wait for the original document to be presented before
endorsing. Completely trust the author but drafts usually seek
opportunity to vary, amend or change before final form.
You are not signing or approving the draft. You are signing or approving authorizing me to place something before the Judicial Committee. The draft is a courtesy, not what you are signing. You are signing
“Judicial Committee Appeal Against the Actions of the LNC with respect to Caryn Ann Harlos in their October 6 Meeting
I join in the appeal, which I consent to have prepared by George Phillies and presented by George Phillies or another sustaining member, of the Libertarian National Committee decisions in their October 6 meeting with respect to the Charges and Specification against Caryn Ann Harlos. The appeal asserts that the decisions violate Party Bylaws including but not limited to sections 14.3, 6.5, 7.15, 7.12, and 3 of the bylaws. I understand that I can withdraw my name or submit my own brief as well.”
JJ had no problems Violating the will of Delegates in Michigan.
His biased “parliamentary opinions” have no merit.
I signed it.
The appeal would violate the bylaws, not to mention the will of the delegates.
Well, that’s a double shot of bullshit.
“The will of the delegates” was that McArdle should chair, and Harlos should serve as secretary of, the LNC. If overturning one of those two things violates “the will of the delegates,” so does overturning the other.
As for the bylaws, they expressly provide for appeal by X% of sustaining members and/or convention delegates of actions of the LNC.
The delegates said that an officer gets due process, like a trial. This tries to prevent that.
Upon charges came to fairly but you know they and are just chuffed that Harlos finally rejected you.
You’re not making any sense here.
The appeal is of an action of the Libertarian National Committee. The appeal is clearly and unambiguously permitted by, and provide for, in the bylaws. Finding the actions appealed void for violation of the bylaws would not deprive anyone of “due process,” because there would be nothing TO process.
Tom don’t bother. He is just in the Party to cause chaos and it’s not the first group he has. Again it’s the butthurt of Harlos telling him to pound sand.
I prefer to argue with Mr. Jacobs on the facts rather than on personal grudges, etc.
On the matter of “due process,” he is simply wrong. Where RONR, etc. are inconsistent with the bylaws, the bylaws rule. Since the bylaws explicitly state the requirements for suspension (a vote of the LNC and nothing else), those are the sole, complete, and exclusive requirements.
The action is NOT the final action of the Libertarian National Committee, which is the problem. The Bylaws give the LNC full control to penalize an officer, subject to the rules of procedure they have adopted.
Only when that has occurred, may there be an appeal.
Following this theory, you would have to permit a similar petition to permit the JC to remove CAH, without a trial.
Jacobs is wrong and I am so glad people are seeing him for what he is. The explanations in this thread are correct. But no believe you when you admit you lied when you signed the membership pledge and are just trying to get even with someone who rejected you.
I signed the appeal. Thank you for providing this opportunity to restore propriety.