FW: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:55:22 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Fw: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

For transparency, I am forwarding this to the public list. 

Join the fight and support the removal of Antifa from the LP by donating at the link below:

Lp.org/martindonor 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: blay <bl...@eblay.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2026 3:33:57 PM
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; LP Judicial Committee 2022 <lp-jc...@googlegroups.com>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

 

Dear Mr. Nekhaila:

The Libertarian National Judicial Committee respectfully declines your request to issue an advisory opinion.

While it is unclear whether the Committee has authority to issue advisory opinions at all, other than within decisions of appeals made to it pursuant to the Party Bylaws, the Committee finds that the issues raised in this specific request may be too closely related to the matter currently on appeal, such that any answer may be or appear to be prejudicial to that appeal, irrespective of whether the Committee has general authority to issue advisory opinions.

Libertarian National Judicial Committee

Blay Tarnoff, Chair 

On Feb 26, 2026 at 19:47, blay <bl...@eblay.com> wrote:

Mr. Nekhaila:

The Committee is currently deliberating whether it is within our authority to issue advisory opinions. We will respond as soon as a decision has been reached.

Thank you for your patience,

Blay Tarnoff, Chair

Libertarian National Judicial Committee 

On Feb 26, 2026 at 19:32, Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Blay,

Please confirm as early as you can that the JC will take up my inquiry.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 4:27:35 PM
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; Blay <Bl...@eblay.com>; LP Judicial Committee 2022 <lp-jc...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

 

Mr. LNC Chair,

I was copied on the LNJC Chair's response since it appears that your request is related to my ongoing JC appeal. 

However, the JC has only limited jurisdiction to act under Article 8 of the LP Bylaws, which to my knowledge, does not include the ability to grant preclusive "interpretations" of pivotal questions which are already under appeal — on demand by one of the parties. 

As a result, it makes legal sense for the LNC and I to work out a way to move this appeal along to get to the answers we are requesting. 

Otherwise, I have to object to the attempt to circumvent the appeal process.

Austin Martin

R1

Ua may ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:35:42 AM
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Blay <Bl...@eblay.com>; LP Judicial Committee 2022 <lp-jc...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

 

The request sent to Mr. Blay is separate to your JC appeal.

We have 7 days to submit an appeal.

Our 7 days has yet to lapse.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 3:33:43 PM
To: Blay <Bl...@eblay.com>; Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; LP Judicial Committee 2022 <lp-jc...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

 

Aloha, esteemed members of the LNJC!

It appears that the LNC respondent is not objecting to the facts presented in the appeal. 

Without objection, I respectfully request (with the approval of the LNC) the waiving of an open hearing. 

In this way, the JC may deliberate in private without further delay.

Respectfully, 

Austin Martin 

R1

Ua may ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: blay <bl...@eblay.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 8:31:46 AM
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; LP Judicial Committee 2022 <lp-jc...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Judicial Committee Interpretation on Bylaw Provisions Regarding Lapsed BSM Membership

Forwarding your request to the LNJC for its consideration. 

Blay Tarnoff, Chair

Libertarian National Judicial Committee 

On Feb 26, 2026 at 13:09, Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org> wrote:

Hello Mr. Blay,

I would like to submit a formal request to the Judicial Committee for an interpretation of the Libertarian Party Bylaws regarding the status of officers, at‑large members, or regional representatives whose sustaining (BSM) membership has lapsed.

According to Article 4 (“Membership”) of the current Libertarian Party Bylaws, “sustaining members” are those who, within the prior 12 months, have contributed at least $25 or who are Life Members. A lapse in this status means the individual is no longer a sustaining member.

Further, Article 6 (“Officers”) stipulates that no person may serve as an officer who is not a sustaining member of the Party.

Similarly, Article 7 (“National Committee”) requires that National Committee members, including regional representatives, must be sustaining members.

I am therefore requesting clarification on the following point:

1. Does a lapse in sustaining (“BSM”) membership constitute immediate and automatic removal from office for an officer, at‑large member, or regional representative upon the deficiency?
   Or must the relevant body (the LNC or the region) deliberate and vote on such a removal?

Secondarily:

2. If the proper interpretation is that the vacancy occurs automatically upon loss of sustaining membership, how does this interact with the rule that a National Committee Regional Representative may be removed and replaced only by the act of the affiliate parties comprising that region (as specified in Article 7)?
   In such a case, is the seat considered automatically vacant upon the deficiency in sustaining membership, or must the region take formal action to remove the representative? 

I respectfully request that the Judicial Committee consider and rule on this question.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC
305‑393‑6412