FW: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:58:10 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Subject: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings everyone. 

The newly installed Judicial Committee has published its rules of Appellate Procedure for the term, and upon examining them, a number of concerning details have been identified. 

I present here an analysis pointing out areas of concern within those rules. 

Provided in the attachments of this email are two documents.

One of them is a markup copy of the Appellate rules, to make clear what was added, removed or moved compared to the rules from the last JC. 

The other is a critical analysis laying out the specific areas of concern, and reasoning as to why they are problematic. 

It is my hope that everyone will examine these documents and carefully consider what's pointed out. 

As the organizations body of last resort, and the organ that members turn to when other parts of the organization fail to uphold principles or adhere to rules, its important that the Judicial Committee be Above Reproach.

It's legitimacy depends on it. 

Sincerely, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:00:04 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Mr. Shaw,

Are you attempting to start an email ballot (4 sponsors required), adding it to our next meeting agenda, or giving food for thought to consider disapproving the submitted appellate rules according to Bylaws Procedure at 8.3?

Any action to disapprove these rules would require 2/3 of this body.

Thank you for the clarification of intent.

Respectfully,

Richard Longstreth

At-Large Representative 

Libertarian National Committee

Richard.L...@lp.org

865.321.1130

www.lp.org/donate

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2026 19:58:10

To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Subject: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:09:41 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Mr. Longstreth,

Sponsors are not required to add items to meeting agendas (when permitted). Sponsors are needed for starting an email ballot, unless the email ballot is started by the Chair.

I believe in my prior email forwarding the notice from JC, I stated I would be adding it to the next meeting agenda.

In Liberty,

Evan McMahon 

Chair - Libertarian National Committee 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2026 06:00:04

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:11:11 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Mr. Longstreth, 

My 6am eyes did not see the email ballot part of your message. You stated it correctly. 

Evan

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2026 06:09:41

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:08:57 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings Mr. Longstreth. 

The intention is to being to the attention of the other LNC members, the areas of concern that are outlined in the analysis. 

Do other LNC members also see issues with the areas that were highlighted? 

What do our members that monitor this public list think? 

There exist a number of possible remedies to address the issues.

We can discuss this matter here in this open forum and actions can be considered, brought or proposed. 

Legitimacy and transparency is important. 

Thank you. 

In Liberty, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2026 06:11:11

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:11:05 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sometimes those 6am eyes play tricks on us.

I also appreciate you reiterating that it is already going to be on our next meeting's agenda for discussion.

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:21:20 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings. 

I'll add that sometimes discussion of topics beforehand is a good idea. 

Fifteen minutes of moderated discussion over something like an entire document of rules that the organization will be saddled with for two entire LNC terms seems insufficient. 

I will begin the discussion by saying that the JC wrote itself in an awful lot of extra discretion, and less outward transparency than the previous JC. 

The specific areas are outlined in the analysis document. 

Thank you.

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2026 08:11:05

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 2:22:00 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings. 

It is my intention that any discussion of the JC rules with the Judicial Committee be confined only to the relative concerns or merits of the rules themselves. 

Thank you. 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2026 10:03:10
To: Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

 

Good morning,

The Judicial Committee is empowered to act, in Article 8 of the bylaws, under the following conditions:

2. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited to consideration of only those matters expressly identified as follows:

a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 5, Section 6),
b. suspension of officers (Article 6, Section 7),
c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 7, Section 5),
d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 7, Section 12),
e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 5, Section 7),
f. challenges to resolutions (Rule 6, Section 2), and
g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates (Article 14, Section 5). 

3. Within 90 days following the regular convention at which elected, the Judicial Committee shall establish rules of appellate procedure to govern its consideration of matters within the scope of its jurisdiction. ... unless denied by a 2/3 vote of the National Committee ...

After reviewing multiple previous versions of the Rules of Appellate Procedure going back over a decade, followed by deliberation and multiple amendments across email communications and an electronic meeting, the Judicial Committee has submitted its amended Rules of Appellate Procedure; therefore we have fulfilled our obligations under the bylaws and, barring a veto by 2/3rds of the LNC, have no additional obligations at this time.

If the LNC would like to ask questions about the proposed rules, I would suggest that the LNC designate one person to communicate with our committee, with the understanding and explicit caution that our communication will inherently be limited to prevent discussion of matters that may end up being part of any future adjudication.

As we are not otherwise empowered or otherwise obligated to act at this time, I would respectfully ask to be removed from this and future email chains outside the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee. Our members, almost all of whom have served on the LNC in the past, did not seek to be on the LNC this term for reasons that may include not wishing to be involved in the daily machinations of the LNC.

Thank you,
Ken Moellman
Judicial Committee Chair

You're receiving this message because you're a member of the Judicial group from Libertarian National Committee. To take part in this conversation, reply all to this message.

View group files   |   Leave group   |   Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 3:50:17 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Chair, LNC, and members of the Judicial Committee:

A Judicial Committee exists to give Party members due process: a fair hearing, on the record, before a body that decides on the merits. The Rules of Appellate Procedure proposed for the 2026–2030 term do the opposite. They are built to let the Committee avoid deciding, avoid explaining, and avoid being seen. I concur fully with Alfa Shaw’s critique, and I will break down the worst of it.

Section 2.8 lets five members reject, strike, or refuse to publish any filing “without reaching the merits,” and throw out an entire petition as “sufficiently egregious.” The grounds are words the Rules never define: “clearly false,” “frivolous,” “language not suitable,” “decorum,” “not permitted in a judicial proceeding.” A body that can dismiss a case for being “clearly false” without ruling on whether it is true is not adjudicating. It is gatekeeping, on standards it writes for itself and applies to whomever it chooses. There is no defense whatsoever for this abject abuse of process and breach of our bylaws.

This is not a theoretical defect. Article 9, Section 2 charges the Committee with real duties: affiliate-revocation appeals, officer suspensions, member-at-large suspensions, where the Bylaws say the Committee shall hold a hearing and interested persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence. Section 2.8 hands the Committee a tool to refuse the very hearings the Bylaws command. A procedural rule cannot override a Bylaws duty. To the extent 2.8 purports to, it is invalid.

The rest of the design points the same Kafkaesque direction. Members who never attend the hearing may still vote, up to ten days after it ends (Section 8.7), which means decision by people who never heard the case. Deliberations stay secret unless two-thirds vote to open them (Section 8.4). Nothing requires a written, reasoned opinion, so a bare ruling with no explanation will do. Redactions, publication, and even the case-management system itself sit under the Committee’s unchecked control (Sections 2.8, 5.1, 2.9). Each choice trades transparency for discretion and accountability for control.

These Rules are not a neutral housekeeping update. They equip a Committee to dismiss inconvenient petitions early, close its proceedings, bury its reasoning, and answer to no one. That is an offense to due process and to what this Party claims to stand for.

The LNC is not powerless here. Under Article 9, Section 3, these Rules take effect only if the LNC does not deny them by a two-thirds vote within sixty days of submission. I ask the LNC to consider what the JC presented and then exercise that power: deny these Rules and return them to the Judicial Committee for revision that restores merits-based decision, mandatory hearings, reasoned written opinions, and a real presumption of openness.

~

The Defects, Ranked by Damage to Due Process

1. Section 2.8, merits-blind rejection power. Five members can reject, strike, or refuse to publish any filing “without reaching the merits,” and dismiss an entire non-convention petition as “sufficiently egregious.” The grounds are undefined: “clearly false,” “frivolous,” “language not suitable,” decorum “not permitted in a judicial proceeding.” Worst because it lets the Committee refuse to decide cases the Bylaws (Article 9, Section 2) say it shall hear, on standards it writes for itself. This is the one with an actual ultra vires collision.

2. No mandatory written reasoned opinions. Section 9.3 requires that decisions be published, and Section 9.2 allows preliminary notification to be oral, but nothing requires the Committee to explain its reasoning or record its votes. A bare ruling suffices. This is what makes every other abuse unreviewable: you cannot challenge reasoning that is never stated.

3. Section 8.7, absent members vote up to ten days post-hearing. Members who never attended can still cast deciding votes within ten days. Decisions made by people who never heard the arguments, with a window open to post-hearing lobbying and no real-time scrutiny.

4. Section 8.4, deliberations secret by default. Deliberations occur in executive session unless a two-thirds vote opens them. The reasoning process, where the actual decision happens, is presumptively hidden, inverting the openness the Rules claim elsewhere.

5. Sections 2.6 and 2.7, executive session on subjective balancing. The JC may close proceedings at a petitioner’s request (privacy) or the LNC’s request (legal liability), weighing risk against openness with no defined criteria and no appeal. The LNC-liability carve-out is especially exploitable: the body being challenged can request closure.

6. Sections 2.4 and 2.5, burden of proof on submitters. Petitioners bear the full burden of proving signer eligibility and organizational authorization; the JC can reject signatures or entire filings if proof is deemed insufficient. A high, JC-judged bar that disadvantages grassroots and less-resourced petitioners. Compounds Section 2.8(j), which makes any such defect a rejection ground.

7. Section 7.1, amicus restricted to Sustaining members. Non-Sustaining members are cut out of amicus participation. Note: the claim that prior rules allowed broader filing is asserted in the comparison document but could not be verified against the 2022 text; treat the “rollback” framing as unconfirmed.

8. Section 3.3, JC defines who counts as a respondent. The Committee itself identifies any other member, affiliate, or committee “likely to be affected” as a prospective respondent, expanding or limiting the parties by its own judgment.

9. Section 2.9, optional, JC-controlled online system. The documentation system is discretionary and Committee-controlled, centralizing control over what is visible and when.

10. Section 8.6, oral argument fully discretionary. The JC may in its discretion offer oral argument “under such rules as the Committee shall specify,” controlling timing, format, and whether it happens at all.

11. Sections 2.3 and 6.1, timing asymmetries. Submissions must arrive before the hearing “except by leave of the Committee” (2.3); respondents get seven days or “promptly” at convention (6.1). Discretionary leave plus tight windows let the JC control whose late evidence comes in.

12. Self-policing, no external oversight of JC procedure. Nothing in the Rules provides a mechanism to challenge the JC’s own redactions, rejections, or procedural rulings beyond the JC itself. The only real external check is structural and sits outside the Rules: the LNC’s Article 9, Section 3 power to deny the Rules wholesale within sixty days of submission.

Two Cross-Cutting Notes

The catch-all in Section 2.8(j), rejection for any rules, format, or signature non-compliance, is what weaponizes the otherwise-minor procedural requirements above. It turns every formatting requirement into a dismissal “gotcha” to deny justice to anyone arbitrarily. This JC process, and presumably the members in it, seem more hostile to core LP principles like Due Process than the US government. The ranking above reflects due-process damage. If ranking instead by legal vulnerability, items 1 and 2 are where the ultra vires and Bylaws-duty arguments are strongest. 

In short, these issues will lead to our decisions being vulnerable to court interventions and reversals. Instead of protecting internal governance decisions, this JC will open the LNC to serious legal risks which could also attach to individual officers for ultra vires acts or fiduciary breaches. 

Mahalo for your consideration,

Austin Martin 

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2026 04:22:00

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 5:34:05 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Thanks to Alfa and Austin for such thorough and informative critiques.

Barbara Engelhardt 

Reg 4 Alt Rep

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 8:50 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Mimi Robson <mimi....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 5:35:28 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

After reading through the proposed rules, I agree that fifteen minutes isn't enough time to work through a document that will govern the Judicial Committee for the next four years.

Unless a working group is able to get together beforehand and come back with a substantially revised proposal, I'm not sure the July 5 meeting is the right time for the LNC to consider these rules.

I'd much rather spend a little extra time getting them right than rush through a discussion that is unlikely to resolve the concerns that have been raised. Since the current rules remain in effect unless the LNC approves a new set of rules, I don't think we need to force a decision before we're ready to make one.

Mimi Robson

LNC Region 4 Representative

lp.org | mimi....@lp.org

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 12:16:46 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Mimi Robson <mimi....@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

With official submission on June 7th, the LNC would have until August 6^th to reject. An ad hoc committee set up for July could bring a yay or nay recommendation to the August 2^nd monthly meeting. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC Region 5 Alternate

Travi...@LP.org

LP.org/BostDonor

---

From: Mimi Robson <mimi....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2026 01:35:28

[DO NOT USE]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 3:40:50 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Mimi Robson <mimi....@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>
Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; DO NOT USE <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings. 

I agree that an Ad Hoc committee to examine and discuss the rules and return a recommendation is a good idea. 

Thank you. 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2026 08:16:46

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 7:43:45 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Mimi Robson <mimi....@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings. 

Seeing as there are several members who appear favorable to an Ad Hoc committee being formed to examine this topic, 

I would like to notice a   "Motion to create an Ad Hoc committee to examine the new JC Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the two analyses that have been prepared on them and to report back to the LNC with a recommendation, to be presented no later than the August 2nd, 2026 scheduled LNC meeting. 

Appointments to this committee to include: 

The two members who presented the analyses, other LNC members who wish to nominate themselves to serve on the committee,  up to a maximum of 7 members." 

Thank you. 

In Liberty, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2026 11:40:50

To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Mimi Robson <mimi....@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>

Cc: Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 7:49:44 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Mr. Shaw,

This would be out of order as Bylaws stipulate that the LNC can only vote to reject the JC's proposed policies and procedures by a 2/3rd vote. If that occurs, then the procedures from the previous term are adopted. There is no mechanism for them to workshop, change, or amend the rules once presented to the LNC. We either vote them up or down and if voted down by 2/3... the prior rules stay in place.

Also, the JC has requested that we not communicate with them as they are a separate body that wants to maintain independence from the LNC and such discussions. That has been the long-standing practice.

In Liberty,

Evan

Evan McMahon Chair Libertarian National Committee evan.m...@lp.org ‪(317) 455-6986 lp.org

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 3:43 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 7:57:30 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Aloha, Mr. Chair,

I rise to make a point of clarification: 

1. An ad hoc committee would only have recommendation power. I believe this is all the mover intended. It was not suggested the committee have "approval power". As I understand it, a vote on the rules could commence at any time, with or without the committee's input. I see no violation in its creation. 

2. The Chair raises a good point about the need for JC independence from the LNC, and that it would be inappropriate for us to have any appearance of attempting to force the JC to accept our terms. We should keep this in mind, but it would not affect a review for use by the LNC to aid in decision-making.

If you agree that these points are meritorious, then I would respectfully request a re-evaluation of the previous ruling considering these items.

Respectfully submitted, 

Austin Martin 

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2026 09:49:44

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 8:03:47 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Critical Analysis of JC Appellate rules (2026-2030)

Greetings Mr Chair, 

As Mr. Martin pointed out a committee to consider a recommendation to the LNC would appear to consistent with the bylaws. 

Thank you. 

In Liberty, 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2026 15:57:30