On December 4, National Chair wrote the Judicial Committee. Her text follows. She also attached a long PDF which appears here as a separate file at the link. While I am a directly involved party in the appeal, she did not send me a copy of this case document, which I have now received. As the letter affects all of you who signed the appeal, you can find it here.
The National Chair wrote:
“Hello Judicial Committee:
I had a meeting with our legal counsel this morning to discuss your decision and how it may or may not impact currently pending legal matters. Attached please find a letter with questions regarding your recent decision in the Phillies matter.
Angela McArdle
Chair, Libertarian National Committee”
On a related topic, I am still receiving questions as to exactly what the Judicial Committee overturned. In the following, the items on which the LNC voted are labelled with capital letters. There are 8 of them. All 8 votes were vetoes by the Judicial Committee.
A. Charge 1: Gross Misconduct In Office
B. Specification 2: In that Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos failed to follow the legitimate instructions of the Libertarian National Committee Chair by filing paperwork regarding the presidential ticket, exclusive of the electors, with the Colorado Secretary of State (LP Bylaws, Article
6.5).
C. Charge 2: Conduct That Disturbs the Well-Being of the Libertarian Party, Hampers it in its work, and That Renders Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos Unfit for the Office of Secretary
D. Specification 1: In that, by filing the names of presidential and vice presidential nominees with the Colorado Secretary of State, Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos has exposed the Libertarian National Committee to litigation.
E. Specification 2: In that Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos has maligned various members of the Libertarian National Committee, specifically Mr. Adam Haman, and Ms. Angela McArdle, as detailed in On the Issue of Misrepresentation, On the Issue of Decorum and On the Issue
of Investigation Interference.
F. Specification 3: In that Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos attempted to obstruct the investigation by falsely claiming that the convention had ruled regarding an investigating committee (Post of August 26, 2024, 3:47:13 a.m. MDT).
The LNC also passed the following two resolutions to suspend Ms. Harlos temporarily from her position pending trial and to appoint a trial manager:
G. Resolved, that from the time official notification of this resolution is delivered to Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos’ address until disposition of the case, all of Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos’ authority, rights, and duties pertaining to the office of secretary and of all Libertarian Party Committees except the Historical Preservation Committee are suspended.
H. Resolved, that Mr. Jonathan McGee act as the manager for the Libertarian National Committee.
All true Libertarians should jump ship to either the Prohibition Party or the Constitution Party and take them over. The Libertarian Party is screwed!
Why would we want to do to another party what was done to us. I understand the sentiment but ultimatley that would be just as wrong.
So take over the party that believes in prohibiting everything that those libertarians consume on a daily basis? Or the party of the religious right/pseudo-Christians, who gleefully post pictures of inhumane acts in campaign ads?
Interesting choices.
It seems like there is a very real possibility that in addition to pretending the bylaws and policy manual don’t exist, the LNC will also pretend the jucicial committee doesn’t exist and try to fill a vacancy that doesn’t exist at their meeting this weekend. We’ll see.
Interesting questions. Does that mean the LNC does not recognize the decision of the JC until those questions are sorted out? (Harlos remains suspended in other words).
Not legally. But who expects the LNC to follow the party bylaws?
The suspension pending trial has in any event run its course. The suspension following trial of October 6 continues through to the Judicial Committee Hearing on the suspension following trial of early November is in effect until a forthcoming JC hearing.
So she is still suspended, even though the actions of October 6, including voting to try her and appointing a trial manager, are invalid?
No, they voided charges and appointment of trial manager meaning the trial is void. You cannot have a trial on nonexistent (void) charges.
i feel like E is a joke right? the way she lets the MC * notable malagnon talk shit* is she serious?
If Harlos is not permitted to serve as secretary at this meeting this LNC risks potential breach of contract action from her with damages of travel expenses and noneconomic damages. They tried to charge her with putting the party at risk of legal action but McArdle is doing that right now. Harlos is a paralegal and could probably do it if she wanted to without attorney expense but just filing fees. The LNC in the appeal documents goes on quite a bit about deductibles and this would be another one and even if they just handled without insurance any suits like car accidents must be reported on applications and make director liability policy premiums go up or impossible to get. McArdle is just being pridefully stupid. They have the votes to do what they want even with her there.
I do also have to note that the “living document” thing was quite ironic. The Bylaws in that sense are a “living document.” So is RONR. The Policy Manual is incorporated into the Bylaws and the Policy Manual gives clarity on cause as it is permitted to do per the Bylaws. This was very clearly explained in the ruling. Just because one is amended easier than the other doesn’t make one “deader” and thus more authoritative. If that were the case, RONR is changed far less often than any of them. It is decades between editions.
In public comment at the beginning of the meeting, assuming they are still following traditional party decorum, a dues paying member in good standing with the party needs to ask the following questions:
A letter was sent to the FEC on December 2 in which the statement was made that the libertarian party has assumed responsibility for the expenditures of Team Kennedy. Is that true, and if so, does that include outstanding debt as would be implied by the statement of taking over respinsibility?
Who made this decision, when was it made, and what was the effective date that the LNC took over paying expenditures? Was this decision properly reported to the members and to the FEC, and if so, when? Please respond.
I believe that it will be important for any subsequent lawsuit and or criminal investigation for violating DC law that a dues paying member whose dues are current ask these questions in the official meeting.
I recommend that it be someone other than you if possible and that the entire set of questions be asked before the chair or other members of the LNC attempt to respond.
When making a statement or asking questions, the person asking the questions has the floor until they finish their statement. Do not allow the chair to stop them or interrupt them until the questions have been asked and are then on the record.
And of course someone from the chair’s team will have read this in advance, which is why it needs to be someone asking to speak that is not you. She will be prepared to stop you in mid sentence somehow.
I once managed to get the mayor of Charleston to admit to a crime during a council session by using this tactic of asking all the questions in one statement. He got up and responded to multiple questions. He slipped up and included a confession of violating election law.
After he did, I responded with “so you admit you broke the law“. He sat down abruptly.
That was 24 years ago this past summer. Seems like a century.
I was the Chairman of the Republican Party in Charleston at the time. No matter what I tried, I could not get them to prosecute him. He won the illegal election, outlawing parties. But I beat him on his one cent Sales tax referendum that same day, which was the only time Joe Riley ever lost anything in the 40 years he was Mayor.
By the time this is posted, it will probsbly be Thursday, December 5. I made it to 67!
Happy birthday!
It is clear that she has no intention of following the ruling of the JC. She is using a classic delaying technique by asking for clarification.
She will now claim that she is going to wait until her questions are clarified. And once they are clarified, she will simply ask more questions.
This will go on as long as she remains chair.
If I were still in the libertarian party, I would be filing an emergency appeal to the court in DC to freeze the assets of the party and hold a hearing regarding her competency as chair. Then I would be calling the department of justice. Has anyone ever looked into the actions of her and other members of the LNC in relation to RICO?
This stinks of New York/New Jersey mob tactics.
This is completely inappropriate. Once the JC rules, it rules. The LNC can try to get a Court to overturn (as some unhappy members did in Michigan, and they believed many of the same things that McArdle is asserting here yet supported in Michigan), but the LNC cannot insert lawyer(s) into the JC who oversees the LNC (it is unclear here if it is Mr. Hall or the other firm they have or one or the other or both – the “we” is ambiguous) . Their recourse is the Court’s just as Mr. Phillies would be or any other member. Our Bylaws place the JC over the LNC.
The holding in the JC opinion is clear:
*****
As either “failure to perform the duties of office” or “gross malfeasance” is an implicit element of every Charge, and as none of the Specifications allege conduct that can reasonably be found to meet either one, and as a trial may be held only upon the preferral of valid charges and specifications, all four Specifications, the two Charges they support, and the two trial-related resolutions are all hereby declared null and void for failure to allege conduct that can reasonably be characterized as rising to a standard required for prosecution set forth in LNC Policy Manual 1.01 (4).
****
Preferal of charges is a prerequiste for a trial. If the vote to prefer charges is voided, there is no trial as the thing being tried doesn’t exist.
This letter does certainly lend evidence to my assertion that the attempted removal is a pretext regarding “pending litigation” which litigation is a legal right of any director of a non-profit. I would say it is a duty if they believe it well founded, and that is left to the Courts.