FW: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 9:33:50 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Cc: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Aloha, Judicial Committee, 

If you will pardon my frankness, I prefer to shoot straight and skip the fakery and charades. My intent is not to attack anyone, but to express my region's incredulity and outrage at the apparent burden-shifting and factional presumptions against our affiliates' right to simply make our voice heard on a decision that directly affects every state and every member. 

The issues, off-the-cuff:

1. You cited Rule 2.5 to exclude 6 state parties from being heard and as an obstacle to their arguments from being considered in their official capacity as state parties. However, Rule 2.5 applies to petitions, not Amicus briefs.  which is not applicable here.  The organizational rights of members can be expressed by affiliates through their elected officers' signatures and should be presumed valid. Therefore, any challenge to our authority to sign should be for good cause and must disposed through the proper process. The wording in the cited rule, Rule 2.5 is specific to "petitions", which is different than the broader word "submissions", which is defined in Rule 1.7. The burden in question is stipulated in Rule  2.4 — only where the "submission must be signed or is supported by the signatures of members". We maintain that no such requirement exists here in such a way to preemptively rebut the elected authority of affiliate chairs to submit an amicus on behalf of their state party. 

2. Most state chairs would be legally authorized without a formal motion to join a JC Amicus — I have precisely this authority granted to me in my bylaws. However, because I was anticipating exactly this kind of unjust "gotcha" from this JC, the LPHI went to the trouble of producing a unanimous ballot for this question. However I maintain that I do not have the burden of proof here — you do. Prove the requirement exists and applies. We maintain it cannot, because your request puts our governance authority and state bylaws under direct prerequisite consideration prior to deliberations, which exceeds the scope and delegated authority of the JC from the LP bylaws for the matter actually under consideration.

3. Eben if such a requirement existed, it would be repugnant to the LP Statement of Principles and the LP Bylaws. The US government courts are actually less restrictive than the current JC of the Libertarian Party with respect to this arbitrary burden that you presume to shift on state parties without cause. The Oregon Party reliably informs us that not even SCOTUS places this level of burden on Amici. Perhaps another litigant could challenge the standing of a signer for good cause, but I am having trouble seeing this as anything but an abhorrent attempt to suppress and violate the rights of entire state parties, subjecting them to the arbitrary discretions of a highly partisan committee with questionable authority to function under present circumstances in the first place. 

4. As party chair, my official attestation is prima-facia evidence of the will of my committee that would be admissible in nearly any circumstance absent a direct challenge. My bylaws confer this authority on me; the questioning of my authority to act for my affiliate is not a matter properly before this JC for consideration. I hereby attest that the LPHI has spoken properly to this body as an entity, not merely a collection of members. Is this genuinely being disputed? 

5. For those states whose authorization is not as specific in the bylaws, requiring the signatures of our state board members would arguably change the character of the affiliate amicus to a multi-member submission, and in so doing, deny affiliates their organizational right to express their interest as an entity. It would also raise a problem of a de-facto judicial review of a state's bylaws and officer's authority to act, even though the ordinary presumption would be in favor of the elected official engaging in duties ordinarily performed. On what basis is this being rebutted, and under what authority does the JC intend to make interpretive rulings on our states' bylaws?

Care to change my mind before I waste a lot of our people's time and energy meeting a burden that is clearly not even applicable under present circumstances? Please take notice that any "proof" of authority provided from us will be provided under duress and will be considered a serious breach of the bylaws and our rights as state affiliates. 

Austin Martin 

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 7:59:13 AM
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Hi Austin,

The JC has received this amicus filing and has performed a cursory review.  One thing that was found, in the initial review, that needs to be remedied is the amicus conforming to rule 2.5 which reads:

When a petition is submitted on behalf of an organization, the organization shall be required to provide evidence (e.g., meeting minutes, bylaws, etc.) that the petition was submitted in compliance with its governing documents, and not in conflict with the Bylaws, as part of the filing.

This provision is meant to protect state affiliates by ensuring that the signer purporting to speak for the organization was duly authorized to do so by the organization, as we cannot reasonably know the bylaws or the inner machinations of the state affiliates. 

Can you please collect the snippet of the bylaws or meeting minutes (or draft meeting minutes, if not yet approved) for each signer for the amicus, limited to the part that is relevant to the authority of these signers to submit on behalf of their organization, along with a reference to the full document if that is available?

Once collected, please include them as an appendix on the original filing and re-submit, and we will consider that an amendment to the original filing. 

So you are aware, we have not yet set a date and time for the hearing, but we are working on that now.

I have also BCC'd this correspondence on our internal email list.  The external forwarder operated by LP National fails to reach all of the members because of the way the email forwarding is set up, so we use this internal list to ensure that all members of the Judicial Committee receive a copy of everything, and to have an archive of the inner-workings of the Judicial Committee if that becomes necessary to produce at a later date.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee 

On 2026-07-10 17:06, Austin Martin wrote:

Aloha!

 

On behalf of the six undersigned state party affiliates, including the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, I am submitting this Amicus Brief for consideration by this Judicial Committee in the matter of the New Hampshire disaffiliation decision. 

 

Please acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. 

 

Mahalo in advance for your kokua. 

 

Austin Martin

Libertarian Party of Hawaii | Chair

LNC Representative for Region 1

 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

 

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: Sunday, July 12, 2026 12:00:53 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Aloha, Ken!

Mahalo for the correction regarding the applicability of Rule 2.5 and for the good-faith framing. In that same spirit, the amicus stands as filed for the reasons below.

1. Rule 7.1 must be read against its predecessor, Rule 5.1, which permitted "members" to file amicus briefs. The recent amendment added a single qualifier: sustaining membership. It did not add a second, unstated restriction barring affiliates from filing as entities. To read one in is to legislate a limitation the drafters did not enact. That matters acutely here, because whether a state party is a corporate person with cognizable rights is one of the precise questions the New Hampshire appeal presents. A rule construction that forecloses affiliates from being heard as affiliates, on the question of whether affiliates have rights as entities, inappropriately decides the merits through a filing rule.

2. There are two distinct questions, and only one is before this Committee. The first is whether the person presenting a state's action was authorized to present it. That question is within the Committee's cognizance, and it is answered by the attestation itself: a sitting chair invoking their office carries the presumption of official duties regularly performed. The second question is the internal validity of the state's action under its own governing documents. That is a matter of affiliate governance. It is not delegated to this Committee by the Bylaws, and the Committee has no authority to reach it.

3. Rule 2.4's evidentiary burden does not attach to a chair's attestation of entity action. A member purporting to speak for a state would carry a real burden under that rule. A chair invoking the authority of their office does not, because to demand more is to place the affiliate's bylaws and the officer's authority under Committee review. That is the autonomy violation, and it is the same review the Bylaws withhold from this Committee. The presumption of regularity is therefore dispositive of the authorization question, not a starting point subject to shifting at will.

This applies uniformly to all six signers. Differential treatment among them would itself be jurisdictional overreach, because the Committee cannot reach the internal governance of any one affiliate absent a specific challenge brought with particulars and disposed through due process. There is no such challenge before the Committee. Each chair's attestation stands on the authority of their office, and the six stand alike.

Each affiliate's authorization is a matter of its own record. Its production is not a filing prerequisite, and it will not be furnished to satisfy a burden that does not attach to a chair's attestation. If the Committee believes it has cause to question a particular signer's authority, it should identify the challenge with particulars and afford the affiliate due process. Absent that, the attestations stand and the amicus is properly before the Committee as filed.

Sincerely,

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2026 13:33:58
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

 

Hi Austin,

My apologies. You are correct. JC Rule 2.5 does only apply to those filing petitions, and an amicus brief is not a petition. 

However, there's a larger issue that was discovered after the most-recent correspondence.

Rule 1.7 States:

"Submission" means any petition, response, amicus brief, or supporting material filed with the Committee.

And Rule 2.4 states:

Where a submission must be signed or is supported by the signatures of members, the party making the submission shall supply evidence that each signer is entitled to sign or otherwise submit it; and, where these Rules or the Bylaws require the signatures of a particular number of a given classification of members, shall demonstrate that the submission carries the requisite number. The burden of establishing that a signer is entitled rests on the party making the submission, which shall obtain the necessary proof from each signer; any signature for which entitlement is not established shall not be counted toward the requisite total.

And Rule 7.1 states:

Sustaining members may file amicus briefs in support of the petitioners or respondents.

The actual deficiency is that organizations have no outlined rights to file an amicus under our rules. This was a carry-over from the previous rules, section 5.1, which were amended with the additional restriction of sustaining membership versus generic membership:

Members may file amicus briefs in support of the petitioners or respondents.

In the petition, the names were submitted as being on "behalf of" the state organizations, and not as individuals. The organizations are not "members" or "sustaining members" of the national party, as defined under the bylaws. They are affiliates; a separate class.

I agree that as individual actors, these co-signers could sign as individuals, provided they are sustaining members of the national party. An individual obviously has the authority to speak for themselves if they submit an amicus brief on their own behalf.  They may be required to supply proof of sustaining membership as outlined in the second portion of Rule 2.4, if they're not known to the Judicial Committee to be sustaining members. We do not have access to the national party's database to be able to make such verification.

There is nothing factional about any of this. We are humans acting in good faith to do the best that we can to ensure all filings are correct. All of the rules will be applied equally.

Again, I apologize for any confusion caused by my initial response. 

This message has been BCC'd to the internal JC mailing list as well, for the same reasons the previous correspondence was.

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 3:45:18 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Aloha, Ken. 

Perhaps I need to clarify the situation:

1. Article 5, Section 6 of the Bylaws, the provision governing this appeal, states that the Judicial Committee "shall notify all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument." That right is conferred by the Bylaws, not by the Rules. Rule 7.1 cannot be construed to eliminate it.

2. State affiliates are the paradigm "interested persons" in an affiliate disaffiliation appeal. The precedent set here affects the security of every affiliate's status. Had the drafters meant to limit participation to sustaining members, they would have written "sustaining members." They wrote a broader term because they meant a broader class, and affiliates are its most obvious occupants in this proceeding.

3. You correctly note that affiliates are a distinct class under the Bylaws. That is precisely why Article 5.6 reaches them. Reading Rule 7.1 to exclude the class of persons Article 5.6 expressly named inverts the hierarchy of authorities. A committee rule cannot restrict a bylaws-level right. To the extent it purports to, it yields.

The amicus is filed pursuant to Article 5.6 and stands as filed. Each Chair's attestation invokes the office and carries the presumption of regularity. If the Committee believes it has cause to challenge a particular signer's authority, it should identify the challenge with particulars and afford the affiliate due process. Absent that, the six signers stand alike and the brief is properly before the Committee.

Mahalo in advance for upholding the Bylaws and our Statement of Principles — not individual prejudices. 

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2026 15:12:19

To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

 

Hi Austin,

It is important to note that the section heading for section 7 is "Privileges of interested parties", a title that was retained from section 5 of the previous rules. Under the current (and previous) rules, the section heading makes clear that submission of an amicus brief is a privilege, not a right.  

Rule 7.1 (formerly rule 5.1, amended) is a specific granting of the privilege for sustaining members to submit an amicus, and nowhere else in the rules is there a provision for any others to submit an amicus brief.

What you had submitted to the Judicial Committee specifically used the language "on behalf of the Libertarian Party of ____" in the signature block of the document for each of the signers, and your original email used the language "On behalf of the six undersigned state party affiliates...". In plain language, this means the submission was not made on behalf of each chair as an individual sustaining member of the national party, but instead intended to be made by the respective organizations.

Therefore, to apply the specific privilege outlined in the rules equally among all sustaining members, we must reject amicus briefs from anyone except sustaining members acting in their capacity as an individual sustaining member, and the question of affiliate party authorization in this circumstance is moot.

If the original amicus brief you had submitted is re-submitted by one or more national party sustaining members as individual signers rather than signatories on behalf of organizations, and conforms to the rules for such submissions, it will be accepted on behalf of those sustaining members.

This message has been BCC'd to the internal JC mailing list.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 6:11:53 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Aloha Ken,

The position has now shifted three times in a single day.

1. Rule 2.5 was cited, then withdrawn.
2. Rule 7.1 was cited to exclude organizations.
3. Now Article 5.6 is narrowed by a misconstrued term of art that, ironically, would disprove the claim that state parties could not assert an interest as corporate persons. 

The rule keeps changing — comedically. The result does not, which is considerably less funny and more tragic. That pattern is itself the concern, whatever the intent behind it.

On the merits:

1. "Interested persons" is not a term of art meaning parties with a direct stake. The term of art for direct stakeholders in a proceeding is "parties," and Article 5.6 already uses party language where it means party. The drafters shifted to the broader phrase "all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument" precisely to reach beyond the two contending sides. Reading the broader term as a synonym for the narrower one renders the drafters' word choice meaningless. Standard construction disfavors that "creative" reading.

2. The internal contradiction is more serious. If Section 7's heading proves amicus participation is a privilege of interested parties, then Rule 7.1 grants that privilege to sustaining members, which means the Rules classify sustaining members as interested parties for amicus purposes. If you then read Article 5.6's "interested persons" to include only LPNH and the LNC, the two terms conflict, and Section 7's heading cannot be imported to define who qualifies under Article 5.6. Your framework requires both readings at once. They do not coexist. You cannot claim that state parties cannot assert an interest while also narrowly torturing the meaning of the word "interest" to mean only two corporate persons. It presents as a manifest absurdity.

3. The "stake" distinction fails on its own terms. A ruling that the LNC may summarily disaffiliate LPNH without cause, notice, or investigation is a ruling that the LNC may summarily disaffiliate any other affiliate on the same terms. That is not a downstream consequence. It is the binding rule the Committee is being asked to announce. Affiliates whose status will be governed by the rule selected here have a direct stake in the selection. Federal practice recognizes this exact category as amici of right. The Bylaws capture the concept in plainer language. Again, this JC is behaving further out-of-step with our principles than the US government judicial system.

4. The heading argument does not survive the text. Article 5.6 states that interested persons "shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument." That is a right conferred by the Bylaws. A heading in the JC Rules cannot demote it to a privilege, and a rule made under delegated authority cannot contract a right the delegating instrument granted. To the extent Rule 7.1 is read to eliminate participation that Article 5.6 guaranteed, Rule 7.1 to that extent yields.

I will note one thing directly. The repeated assurance that there are no prejudices here would carry more weight if the rules cited to reach the same exclusion had not changed three times in 24 hours. Good faith is demonstrated in patterns, Ken, not merely asserted in taglines. Genuine, good faith ambiguity should always be resolved in favor of member rights, not against them.

On the offer of individual refiling. The six signers reserve the right to file individually as sustaining members to preserve the record, and any such filing is without prejudice to the entity-participation question, which remains presented and unresolved. The affiliate amicus still stands as filed under Article 5.6.

Sincerely,

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2026 18:40:38

To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

 

Hi Austin,

Bylaw 5.6 does speak of "interested persons". The phrase "interested persons" is a term of art regarding those with a direct stake in the dispute. While some state affiliates may believe they have a stake in the dispute, it would be an indirect stake, not a direct stake.

The "interested persons" in this appeal are the LPNH board and the LNC board, speaking through appointed representatives. The LPNH board has already appointed and directed all communications to occur through their attorney. Based on my previous experience with JC appeals when I served on the LNC, I'm sure the LNC will also appoint someone to speak for them if they haven't already; I believe this may be the chair, by default.

Each of those entities have the right to file as organizations because they are the interested persons - they are the persons of interest in the matter; the suspended and the suspender. They have a direct stake in the dispute.

Those persons were notified through their official channels; acknowledgement of receipt of the appeal to LPNH through their attorney, and informing the LNC of the appeal through its chair.

As repeatedly noted, there are no prejudices here.

As repeatedly noted, we are not accepting amicus briefs from any organizations.

As repeatedly noted, sustaining members have the ability to file an amicus brief.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:08:57 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Fw: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Forwarded with permission for member and public transparency. 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 10:03:16 PM
To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Cc: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Moellman,

I’m quite concerned over what I've been watching unfold in this conversation. You've now cited three different rules ( 2.5, 7.1, 5.1) and two different versions of cited rules. Each reference is pivoted to after realizing the previous doesn't fit your goals. 

For clarification: which is the official version of the rules? The most current one cited on National 's official website, or the “new” version you're citing today? You cannot be basing your positions in both simultaneously. If the “new” version is official, why is it not on the website? How can we expect to have a meaningful JC process if we aren't even clear about what rules we’re following?

In legal usage: “interested parties” or “interested persons” is a broad term. It includes not only the named litigants but anyone with a direct, legitimate stake in the outcome of the proceeding. Courts routinely allow intervention or amicus participation by entities whose rights, duties, or practical interests will be materially affected by the ruling. The phrase is deliberately inclusive to ensure relevant perspectives inform decisions with precedential effect. A Google search may have helped you here. This is standard in U.S. appellate practice (see Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29  on amicus briefs and the broad application of “interested party” concepts in intervention under FRCP 24 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24 ). FIY: Using “interested persons” instead of “interested parties” actually makes the term broader, not narrower in the legal sense.

In this context, other state affiliates are quintessential interested persons. A ruling on summary disaffiliation without due process directly governs the security and autonomy of every affiliate. The bylaws’ use of the broad term “all interested persons” in Article 5 §6 to reflect this reality. Your interpretation effectively rewrites the bylaws to exclude the class the provision was designed to protect.

Additionally, the bylaws provision governing appeals, Article 5, Section 6, would in fact supersede any rule because it is a bylaw and is intended to confer rights. 

State affiliates and their members are literally the most "interested persons" in a disaffiliation case, because the precedent it sets affects the security of every affiliate's status. If disaffiliation becomes reality for an affiliate, state membership on the individual level is also dissolved. The drafters wrote more broadly in this section (rather than specifying sustaining members as in other sections) because they were deliberately referencing a broader class.

Finally, the amicus brief and related arguments use promissory estoppel to say in essence: "The LNC promised a fair process in 2021. We relied on that promise by continuing to operate as affiliates. It would be unfair for you to change the rules now without consequence." The argument itself ties the promise directly to the potential harm caused.

The affiliates have invested years into building our state parties out under the Libertarian banner. We do so with the understanding that our relationship with the national party rests on mutual commitments to Autonomy and fair process. The summary disaffiliation of LPNH without notice or investigation breaks those promises.

Beyond that, and perhaps most crucially, this type of procedural gatekeeping answers the central question before the merits are heard. It treats affiliates as lacking meaningful organizational rights in proceedings that decide affiliate rights. In doing so, it effectively prejudges the outcome against LPNH and every other state party.

In liberty, 

Abbra Green | LPHI Secretary | LibertarianHawaii.com 

On Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 9:48 PM <ken.mo...@lpstates.com> wrote:

Please note my incorrect use of the term "interested parties" should be substituted with "interested persons".

The rest stands.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee

PS. We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

On 2026-07-12 03:38, ken.mo...@lpstates.com wrote:

Hi Austin,

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

You've insinuated multiple times that this is factional. it is not. It's the words in the bylaws and our rules.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

Use Google or AI to ask what "interested parties" means in a legal sense.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

Bylaws 5.6 includes the "shall" for the LPNH and LNC, guaranteeing a right to them.  JC Rule 7.1 grants privilege to sustaining members.  These are not in conflict.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

If the LNC disaffiliates another party, which then appeals, then that party would be one of the "interested parties" in that case.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

"Interested parties" doesn't include sustaining members. It includes, in this case, LPNH and the LNC.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

Sustaining members who want to file an amicus are entitled to do so in their capacity as a sustaining member.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

The discussion changed because you kept bringing new items to the table.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

From the other thread, these items were reply-to-all and if you didn't want the other people CC'd you should not have CC'd them in the first place.

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

Further persistence on this matter will be be considered dilatory, and I will set up a rule to auto-delete all email from your address. And yes, I can do that because being dilatory 

We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee

PS. We're not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 7:40:45 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Members of the Judicial Committee,

This is addressed to the Committee as a body because the correspondence of the past two days has made it necessary to ask whether the Chair speaks for it.

In the span of twenty-four hours, the Chair has rejected a filing from six state affiliates under three successive theories. Rule 2.5 was cited and withdrawn as inapplicable. Rule 7.1 was then cited to bar organizations from filing entirely. When Article 5.6 of the Bylaws was raised, the Chair narrowed "interested persons" to exactly two entities by way of a claimed term of art that appears nowhere in the Bylaws. Each theory was abandoned upon contact and replaced with another that reached the same result. The Chair then declared further correspondence dilatory and announced he would configure his inbox to auto-delete email from an affiliate representative in an active proceeding. The Committee should consider how that sequence reads on the public record, because the affiliates already have.

The Chair's own words now resolve the question he keeps reopening. He has written that LPNH and the LNC qualify as interested persons "because they are the interested persons." Both are organizations. That settles the categorical question. Either organizational status disqualifies a filer under Article 5.6 or it does not. Six affiliates cannot be told that organizations have no right to file while two other organizations are told their organizational status is exactly why they qualify. If organizations can be interested persons, the only live question is "which ones?"

On that question, the Chair's own example answers it. He wrote that if the LNC disaffiliates another party, that party would then be an interested party in that case. That concedes the class is defined by exposure to the rule under review. The rule this appeal produces, whether the LNC may summarily disaffiliate without cause, notice, or investigation, is the standard every affiliate lives under until revisited. Under the Chair's reading, an affiliate becomes interested only after that standard has been used against it, which guarantees no affiliate is ever heard on what the standard should be, only on whether it was correctly applied to its own destruction after the fact. A construction of Article 5.6 under which the persons it protects can never arrive in time is not a construction. It is a foreclosure.

There is also a defect in the proceeding itself, independent of our filing. Article 5.6 commands that the Committee "shall notify all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument." The duty to notify runs to the Committee. Under the Chair's own account of who qualifies, the Committee owed direct notice to every affiliate whose interest this appeal triggers, and no such notice has issued. The same section required a hearing date to be set within 20 to 40 days of receipt of the appeal. LPNH filed June 2. The window closes today, and the Chair confirmed in writing yesterday that no date exists. Whatever the Committee decides about our filing, both defects now belong to the proceeding and will follow whatever ruling it produces.

On the label, the affiliates require nothing to be overruled. Rule 1.7 defines "submission" to include supporting material and responses in addition to amicus briefs. If six affiliates cannot be styled amicus curiae under Rule 7.1, that is a captioning problem. Receive the filing as supporting material and argument submitted by interested persons under Article 5.6, which no committee rule has authority to restrict, and the objection resolves itself. The affiliates are indifferent to the caption. They are not indifferent to whether the Committee reads what six state parties have to say about a rule that will govern all of them.

Finally, given the Chair's stated intention to filter correspondence from my address, please confirm the channel through which filings in this matter will be received and acknowledged by the Committee as a body. Correspondence in an active proceeding is directed to the Committee. One member's inbox configuration does not remove it from the record, and the affiliates are entitled to know whether the rulings issued over the past two days are the Committee's or one man's.

We consent to the filing being received under whatever caption gets it read. We do not consent to a definition of "organization" that changes depending on which organization is asking.

Sincerely,

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

~ 

PS: Misgendering Ms. Abbra Green in a flippant response was a very indecorous and careless way for a committee chair to respond to a state party secretary. 

While the chair may be embarassed at having to explain his incoherent statements to the membership, his embarassment does not confer the right to engage in procedural abuses, insults, and exclusionary tactics against interested members whom the bylaws say are entitled to have a voice in these proceedings. 

Mahalo for your kokua to this matter. 

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 10:07:59 PM
To: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Green,

If you would like to submit an amicus brief as a sustaining member of the national party, you may do so within the guidelines outlined in the Judicial Committee's rules.

We are not accepting amicus briefs from organizations.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:15:00 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Chair, I ask that Mr. Martin be brought to order for abusing the public list and engaging inappropriately with the Judicial Committee in violation of Policy Manual Section 1.07 (4).

Joe Hannoush

Libertarian National Committee 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 15:40:45

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:20:47 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Martin, the public list is an LNC asset for debate, discussion and voting; not a forum for publicly denigrating members, volunteers, or staff. Nor is the public list appropriate for you to litigate or air your grievances with the Judicial Committee. You are in violation of the LNC’s Behavioral Standards as designated in Section 1.07 (4) of the Policy Manual. I ask that you come to order. 

I am about to board a flight and as such I delegate temporary authority to Vice Chair Griffiths to ensure order and decorum on the public list in my absence.

Evan McMahon 

Chair - Libertarian National Committee

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

---

From: Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 13:15:00

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:30:08 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Chair,

Respectfully, I ask you to identify the provision you believe was violated. Section 1.07(4) contains aspirational standards that are, in its own words, "not subject to discipline," and a Mandatory Code of Conduct whose provisions govern disparagement of the Party, attacks on fellow board members, confidentiality, and harassment. My correspondence did none of those things. It presented procedural argument in an active Judicial Committee proceeding on behalf of a signing affiliate, which Section 1.07(4)(A)(II) expressly identifies as a proper channel.

The Policy Manual provides one procedure for alleged violations of the Behavioral Standards: a written complaint to the Party Officers under Part F, naming the section and containing evidence, resolved through the graduated actions in Part G, the first of which requires a finding. That procedure has not been invoked, and no finding exists. Absent it, there is no violation to come to order from, and I would note the Manual contains no provision authorizing decorum enforcement over the public list by the Chair or by delegation.

I will make the observation once and then leave it. Over three days, an affiliate filing has been rejected under three successive theories, an affiliate representative has been threatened with auto-deleted correspondence, a member has demanded discipline under a section that protects the conduct by name, and the Chair has now directed me to come to order without citing a provision. In that same period, no one has disputed the substance of a single argument raised. The affiliates watching this list can weigh those two facts together.

If any officer wishes to file a conforming complaint under Part F, I will answer it through that process.

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 10:20:47

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:36:28 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Martin,

You are correct that Section A defines the standards listed therein as "aspirational"; however, section B does prescribe a mandatory code of conduct to which members shall adhere. It is appropriate that you be asked to come to order on those terms. 

Thank you,

Amanda

Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 15:30

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:48:20 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Madam Vice Chair,

Then it should be simple to name the provision.

Which one?

Part B contains eight provisions.

     • B.I covers disparaging the Party. I criticized the JC Chair's rulings by quoting them, and A.II names JC appeals a proper channel.

     • B.II covers attacks on fellow board members. The JC Chair is not a board member, and no board member was attacked. The rest cover private information, corporate email, and harassment. None is implicated.

Part F sets the process for a Code of Conduct allegation: a written complaint to the Officers naming the section, with evidence. Four officials have now invoked 1.07(4) on this list. None has named a provision or filed a complaint.

Until one does, there is no violation on record and nothing to come to order from.

I will answer a Part F complaint through the Part F process.

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 10:36:28

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Kelly Nguyen <kelly....@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:53:51 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Madam Vice Chair,

I ask that you call Mr. Martin to order. He continues to grandstand on the public list, wasting the valuable time of members of both the Judicial Committee and the LNC. This unnecessary drama distracts from the business of the LNC and serves no legitimate purpose.

In Liberty,

Kelly

Kelly Nguyen At-Large Representative Libertarian National Committee   kelly....@lp.org Donate at lp.org/nguyen

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 10:48 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:56:13 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Mr. Martin, 

From my understanding, the request that you be called to order dealt with your sharing of communications between you and the Judicial Committee Chair (B III) as well as potential harassment ("engaging inappropriately," in Mr. Hannoush's words), which violates B VII. 

The Chair does also retain a certain discretion on matters related to decorum vis-à-vis Party assets. I hope this helps to clarify some things. 

Amanda

Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 15:48

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:58:13 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Greetings.

This part is interesting:

"This does not discourage explaining their disagreement to constituents nor attempting to change such decisions through proper means such as lobbying for policy or bylaws changes and Judicial Committee appeals.   "

Thank you.

In Liberty,  

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 16:56:13

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 9:34:02 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Members of the Committee(s),

Principles do not apply conditionally depending on whether you agree with the target in question. This is at the very heart of what it means to be a libertarian. 

My questions raised to the JC remain unanswered and the record now reflects a troubling pattern.

I urge the members to consider de-escalation of this situation: we must refrain from abuses of the rules and weaponization of party resources to settle personal vendettas, to put the best interests of the organization first, and to show respect toward one another, even when we strongly disagree. 

Mahalo!

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 10:58:13

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Tyler Danke <tyler...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 9:35:48 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Madame Griffiths, please call Austin to order.

Tyler Danke

Representing the Libertarian Parties of Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 16:34:02

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 9:37:12 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Good afternoon,

I wanted to make sure it was pointed out for the record that the Policy Manual contains no provisions treating ongoing email list discussions (public or LNC-Business) as a continuous or informal "meeting" where parliamentary calls to order may be issued.

The LNC-Business list is referenced for official notices, mail ballot distribution, and calling/vetoing electronic meetings, but it remains a tool for communication and process and is not considered a convened session.

The LNC Chair cannot formally call an LNC member "to order" over the email list, business or public, outside of a meeting. That action is a parliamentary procedure reserved for when the LNC is properly convened in session. 

There is proper procedure for logging a complaint against a member (as mentioned earlier by Mr. Martin) but that is a LNC-level response, not unilateral "calls to order" by the Chair on the list. 

We have a policy manual for a reason, I suggest everyone take a moment to actually read it before creating rules out of thin air where ones don't already exist. 

Sonja Feintech

LNC Region 1 Alt 

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 13:58:13

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 10:17:35 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

All, 

The LNC Business List is an asset for conducting Party business, which remains subject to those procedures and rules that govern Party business. If it is not such an asset, then one can argue that access to this list is arbitrary and can be revoked at any time without any process—which I would advise against. 

Insofar as the LNC Business List is for conducting Party business, moreover, it is accordingly not for sharing memes, airing grievances, forwarding internal communications, disparaging members who lack the capacity to defend themselves within the same forum and to an identical audience, and so on.

We all have our own individual mechanisms of redress for actions or responses with which we disagree; and the Party's rules and procedures provide such mechanisms as well. Once again, the Chair retains discretion when attending to decorum surrounding Party assets and communications. LNC emails are not for personal use; and a general call to order when engaging with Party assets, for the good of the body, is within bounds. 

In Liberty,

Amanda

Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 16:37

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 10:28:10 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>

Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Injustice in the JC; Multi-State Amicus Submission in re: New Hampshire Dissafiliation

Madam Vice-Chair,

That all sounds very nice, my point still stands however that parliamentary procedure literally does not, and cannot exist on the discussion lists, public or business. 

I think what you are referring to is probably Section 1.10  (Party Communications) which gives the Chair a role as chief spokesperson but again, this is executive/administrative authority, not parliamentary procedure. 

The Chair however does have executive authority to request civility, receive/escalate complaints for LNC action and oversee communications quality but that again does not fall under "calling members to order."

Cheers,

Sonja Feintech

LNC Region 1 Alt

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2026 15:17:35