FW: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 6:10:58 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Dear Chair McMahon,

 

I am writing to you this afternoon to formally request that you, along with counsel, immediately pause any forward momentum, new filings, or escalations (subject to mandatory court-ordered deadlines) regarding all pending trademark lawsuits currently involving the Libertarian National Committee—specifically including, but not limited to, the ongoing litigation in New Mexico and Michigan.

 

To be clear, this communication is not a formal motion, nor is it intended to spark a protracted debate via email ballot. Instead, I am raising this as a matter analogous to a point of personal privilege—or more accurately, a point of privilege for the entire assembly.

 

As a newly elected body, many of our regional representatives, officers, and at-large members have inherited complex, high-stakes legal battles that we had absolutely no voice in initiating, voting upon, or strategizing. Because the LNC bears the ultimate financial and fiduciary responsibility for these actions, we are collectively exposed to the consequences of decisions made by a previous board.

 

It is a matter of basic fairness and institutional privilege that the newly elected members of this committee be allowed a reasonable window to review the case files, consult with counsel, and fully familiarize themselves with the underlying issues, risks, and expenditures before any further binding steps are taken. I do request time for Executive Session to review with counsel at our next meeting on June 6.

 

Taking a brief operational pause to allow for a comprehensive onboarding regarding our legal portfolio will ensure that any future actions taken by the LNC are unified, well-informed, and truly reflective of the current committee's direction.  Many of us not on the previous LNC have not been personally invested in or attached to the conflicts but have heard from long time members about the harm they are doing to donors and local parties.

 

I request that you confirm receipt of this notice and advise the committee on the status of a temporary stay on these legal actions until a proper briefing can be conducted for the full board. I would like this body to ultimately decide whether we continue these lawsuits or not. Personally, I'd like to discuss other options involving the trademark, including a variety of resolution strategies.

 

Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Chair and I look forward to your prompt response.

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:52:01 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: FW: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for letting me know that this did not make it to the Board, but only the public list.

I am still learning the new system and responding to ensure all members of the board are aware and can see the below request.

 

Respectfully,

 

Richard Longstreth

At-Large Representative 

Libertarian National Committee

Richard.L...@lp.org

865.321.1130

www.lp.org/donate

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 8:02:39 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Aloha, 

While I appreciate your desire to be informed an diligent about the litigation, it would be a direct fiduciary breach to do as you are asking, imho. 

Some issues:

1. This is an abuse of a point of order/privilege. Bring a motion. 

2. The litigation is a matter of fiduciary responsibility, and stopping or pausing it should not be done lightly or without good cause. 

3. The Atlas-affiliated Liberal Party and Project Liberal Ecosystem is associated with the counterparty, and there are well documented conflicts on the LNC that will need to be managed. 

4. This issue is being politicized by the factional alliance who is actively subverting our LP; ongoing sabotage of the Trademark suit is also well documented and will not be tolerated.

5. The breakaway operations against state parties is a crime that we in the LNC have a fiduciary duty to stop; this request seems like a lot more than a request for information; to me it reads as an attempt to derail the litigation. A complaint has already been filed. 

Respectfully, if you need information, having a meeting about it is a good idea, but changing the trajectory before that meeting occurs would be supremely irresponsible.

Austin Martin 

Region 1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:52:07 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 8:44:56 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Colleagues, 

I join Mr. Longstreth in urging an abundance of caution when suing our own activists, especially when there seem to be better paths forward together.

Regarding this being an abuse of personal privilege - it's simply a plea. Should a motion be deemed necessary, though, I would co-sponsor.

1. I don't find it appropriate for a largely confidential committee to send a legal threat right before a change in leadership.
   
   
2. I continue to hold that there are better paths forward for both the officially-recognized New Mexico affiliate and the historically-recognized one.

Obviously, most of us were not privy to the exact negotiations attempted between the factions. But it's very much worth trying to reconcile now that there's been a large shift. 

We have a choice between an outcome that will definitely be harmful, and a chance at an outcome that would be tremendously beneficial. As a new body, I believe we should strive for reconciliation.

LPNM disaffiliated from us when there were many intra-party issues, and it was unfortunate. Now there's a strong chance we can resolve that.

We should give it our all.

In Liberty,

Keith Thompson

At-Large Representative Libertarian National Committee

Keith.Thompson@LP.org LP.org/ThompsonDonor

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:02 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:03:48 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Although there has potentially been a large shift in the feelings of the LNC, I don’t believe there has been any such shift on the ground in New Mexico. It would be prudent to consider the needs of the affiliate before any pause or change of course is considered. 

Is a “pause” of merely 10 days anything more than symbolic at this point? I don’t know.

Travis L. Bost

LNC Region 5 Alternate

Travi...@LP.org

LP.org/BostDonor

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2026 16:44:56

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:21:01 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Mr. Thompson, 

When you say "our own activists", are you referring to the Deep State bombmaker and Los Alamos Laboratory government contractor, Chris Luchini of the Liberal Party (a hostile political party associated with the Atlas Network and Project Liberal), who recently promised to "burn a cubic mile of money" in a "pyrrhic victory" against all libertarians who disagree with himself and his buddy Sarwark? He claims to be working with members of the LNC to undermine our party.

Is that the "LP activist" you are referring to? Or was there another one? We have an affiliate in New Mexico, and the Liberal Party (who illegally uses our name) is not our affiliate. The Free New Mexico Party is the LNC-recognized affiliate. We would breach our affiliation contract with them to help a compering political party commit fraud against them. 

Also, with many of the states threatening disaffiliation post-convention, this seems like a profoundly treasonous position to take. Our legitimate affiliate is under attack by the potemkin Liberal Party breakaway group. I suspect personal liability would attach to any officer who participates in a scheme to undermine our brand and trademark by working directly with a hostile political party — and there will be litigation. Knowingly and intentionally abetting fiduciary breaches is a serious problem on the LNC right now; I want to see us do better. 

I am doing everything I can to hold our states together, encouraging them not to give up on the broken and corrupt LNC. Behavior like this only puts gasoline on the fire. If we don't want factional infighting, maybe getting in bed with the corrupt Liberal Party USA core affiliate is a bad idea. 

Have you noticed the letter floating around from the state parties? 

I want to keep the LP together and I am doing everything I can to stop states from preemptive disaffiliation. Our differences in actual politics are not insurmountable — the real problem, as I see it, is dishonesty and misconduct in leadership. I think we could figure out our differences amicably if we were all playing by the same rules, but this would mean drawing the line with the NAP. Along that line, your message violates the prohibition against misrepresentation, since you are well aware of the situation, Mr. Thompson, and of the fact that the Liberal Party of New Mexico is not made up of "our own activists". 

Austin Martin

Region 1 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2026 10:44:56