FW: Concerns (Taken public at Ms. Hogarth's request)

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 11:44:26 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Fw: Concerns (Taken public at Ms. Hogarth's request)

Greetings. 

Taken public by request.

Thank you.

In Liberty 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 6:48:14 PM
To: LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns

There is nothing specific here or anything warranting legal counsel imo. What Steven N said covers it well. 

I think if you want to rehash concerns about the process it may as well be on the public list as I see nothing in this discussion requiring confidentiality. Obviously you disagree. Perhaps the Chair has some opinion that can guide us. 

"It's legal stuff" shouldn't, imo, be used as a reason to keep board discussions private unless there is something specifically requiring confidentiality, and I just don't see it here. 

I also don't think it's a good idea to loop our counsel into these sort of rambling email threads because lawyers are expensive. But again, that's probably an issue where guidance from the Chair would be useful. 

• Susan

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 17:20:57
To: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>; LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns

 

Greetings. 

Ms. Hogarth, 

Where exactly do you think is the "Appropriate" place within our email lists to begin a discussion about our legal liability due to our choices, including possible comments from our attorney? 

Thank you. 

In Liberty, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 17:06:07
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns

 

(Sending individually)

I’m not sure what I’m missing here. Did you mean this discussion to be public or private?

• Susan

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 17:03:55
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>; LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns

 

Greetings. 

Ms. Hogarth, you'll notice that the email for lnc board has been changed to lnc confidential. 

Thank you. 

In Liberty, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 16:43:56
To: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>; LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns

 

Remember, kids, never answer the merits — always attack the legitimacy of the speech and the individual's standing to make any statement at all. 

This avoids accountability and helps to quash dissent over things like censorship and draconian abuses of power. 

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 10:41:38
To: LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns

 

<left off our counsel, as in not sure his inbox needs our internal discussion>

I think this is an improper use of the confidential list but perhaps I've missed what makes this discussion something to be held confidential. Alfa, what is confidential in nature here?

I don't want to engage in debate or discussion here, but I will correct one factual point with my understanding (which could of course be wrong):

Statements "from people who support the appeal" who are party members absolutely were welcomed by the JC; but statements from individual members who submitted statements in the name of organizations they represent without clear indication that the organization itself is behind the statement were not welcomed. 

You can disagree with this decision, but to try to paint it as the rejection of individual statements when they were explicitly framed as organizational statements is problematic. 

• Susan 

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 2:55 PM
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns

 

I for one appreciate members who call things out when they perceive a possibility of organizational impropriety. To me this seems very consistent with libertarian philosophy.

Barbara Engelhardt 

LNC Reg 4 Alt Rep

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 10:44 AM
To: LNC Confidential <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>
Subject: Concerns

 

Greetings. 

Ive been watching things with this LPNH stuff unfold since our first meeting together.

At that meeting i expressed concern that not following a standard investigative procedure could create liability for the organization, and pressed for that to be done. 

In haste the vote went forward, and LPNH was disaffiliated. The first non consensual disaffiliation in our history as far as i know. 

Now, we have a situation where that action is up for appeal, and the JC that we have has absolutely bent over backwards to reject basically every filing that appears to come from people who support the appeal. 

I found out today that people who have recently submitted filings have now been told that their filings must now be sent to a new private email address hosted on the JC chairs servers. 

Another run around. 

Yes, I understand that we have no authority over the JC, and that the rules they wrote themselves give them wide latitude to operate as they choose. 

I get it, there's a long standing grudge with LPNH, and some people (including the JC chair possibly?) are deriving all kinds of enjoyment watching LPNH get handled, and supporters of their appeal get the Royal Run Around on paperwork. 

That is what it is. 

However. 

What everyone seems to be missing is that all of this is adding up to a situation where the actions of our organization could possibly be creating a problem if we were faced with legal action over the thing. 

I know many of you probably are scoffing at the idea of that, because you think no court would possibly side with them for any reason. 

I'm not so sure that an outside entity like a court would see things through the same lens that people inside the LP would. 

Our lack of (arguably boring) due process and fast/loose handling of this appeal could be serious problems.

(Yes i know the JC is independent, but from a legal standpoint the national party is responsible for its actions just like our LNC is.) 

Id like to hear everyone elses thoughts on this matter. 

I also copied in Mr. Hall, so he can be aware this concern was raised, and possibly comment if he feels inclined to. 

Thank you. 

In Liberty, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 3:20:04 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Concerns (Taken public at Ms. Hogarth's request)

Actually I did not request that you copy the discussion here. 

Starting a confidential discussion and then ' taking it public' after people have commented on it is problematic. Some of those people may have written with the expectation of confidentiality. You can just start over if you agree that it should be public. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ' public-forward' list built in and not an address we should add to our public discussion list emails? 

Our email system is a bit kludgy tbh; maybe we should spend 15 minutes at the next meeting (or right after) going over how we should best use it. 

• Susan 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 19:44:26

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 3:48:55 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Concerns (Taken public at Ms. Hogarth's request)

Greetings. 

Readers of the thread can judge for themselves. 

(P.S. public-forward is automatically added to the recipient list when you select lnc-public after the item is sent. )

Thank you.

In Liberty,  

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 23:20:04