FW: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Tyler Danke <tyler...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:46:35 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

Abbra and Austin,

As one who sits on the boards of both Lp Wisconsin and the LNC I can assure you that the Lp Wisconsin did not agree to file an amicus brief. LP Wisconsin Chair Reese Wood also does not remember the lp Wisconsin signing an Amicus brief. Please do not try acting on behalf of Wisconsin when you cannot represent Wisconsin. 

Tyler Danke

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

---

From: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2026 15:55:47
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; 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>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

 

The Judicial Committee has spent three days building a wall to keep six state affiliates from filing one amicus brief. Then our Representative was threatened with having his mail auto-deleted because he dared speak for us. Now the “calls to order" are flying on a public communication platform. My voice was shut down, and Representative and our Alternate. 

So to be clear, Hawaii's voice only counts if we pay for it?

The LNC must not forget its place. Affiliates built this party. We carry its name onto ballots, into testimony, through elections that nobody pays us to fight. We volunteer our time. We care deeply whether or not we will be allowed to carry the torch to future generations, which is at the heart of the issue at hand. And the thanks we get is a committee informing us that the right to be heard in a disaffiliation appeal is a paid feature, available to sustaining members only. It is absolutely closed to the affiliates whose survival the ruling decides. We’ve already stated we don’t even care what you call it. Call it a “submission” if you prefer, but don’t tell us we don’t matter.

Carrying the Libertarian name is not a favor the national committee grants us. It is a relationship with obligations that run in both directions. Our rights are not a subscription service. Of all people, libertarians should be able to wrap their heads around this concept.

To Chair Moleman: In one thread you said organizations can't file, then said LPNH and the LNC qualify because they're organizations. The affiliates are organizations under the LNC umbrella. Moving forward you must remember the rules should inform the outcome, not simply allow you to bully your way to the outcome that you want. And for someone who has treated his own affiliate the way you have, forgive me for not assuming that your decision was ever going to favor affiliate autonomy.

To Representative Nguyen: You moved to silence the representation of Hawaii, your own affiliate, after Hawaii told you plainly it does not want you speaking for it. Explain to this list why an At-Large Representative is working to shut down the voice of a state that rejected her. Hawaii is listening.

As for the "call to order"mantra being repeated as law, stop with the games. You’re demonizing our voices and you’re demoralizing your own support. One does not rush to silence people whose arguments they can answer, but the ones they can't.

The affiliates are not going away, and we are not paying admission in order to be heard by the party we help build.

For the sake of liberty,

Abbra Green | LPHI Secretary | LibertarianHawaii.com 

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:07:51 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Tyler Danke <tyler...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

Greetings. 

Mr. Danke, the following affiliates signed the Joint Amicus at the time of its filing:

George Stamper Chair of LPNV on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Nevada

Josiah Baker Chair of LPTN on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee

Dane Courtois Chair of LPME on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Maine

Sonja Feintech Chair of LPO on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Oregon

Austin Martin Chair of LPHI on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii

Patrick McNally Chair of LPNE on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska  

Thank you. 

In Liberty,  

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Tyler Danke <tyler...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2026 17:46:35

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:16:40 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Tyler Danke <tyler...@lp.org>; Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

Mr. Danke,

I was very surprised reading your email that Wisconsin had signed an amicus brief on behalf of your affiliate without your chairs consent. An action like that would have very grave implications indeed!

It took a stupendous effort and much time and devotion on my part, but I managed to find the amicus in question after a long, tedious 10 seconds only to discover...

Wisconsin did not sign the amicus and are not one of the 6 signers. 

Wisconsin DID sign a resolution for affiliate autonomy regarding the LPNH matter that was sent to the JC and the LNC. I will go ahead and attach that here for transparency, so maybe that's your mix up.

Have a wonderful day,

Sonja Feintech

LNC Region 1 Alt

---

From: Tyler Danke <tyler...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 2:46:39 PM

To: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 6:48:18 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; Judicial <judi...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Cc: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>

Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

Aloha!

We can boil down the issue like this: 

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. There is no new or old "rule" that the JC can conjure up that would overcome the bylaws. There is no coherent way to interpret "interested persons" to be equally restrictive as the word "parties". 

Mahalo for attending this basic grammar lesson. 

Austin Martin 

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2026 08:09:59
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Cc: chair <ch...@lpwi.org>; ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

 

Let's not deflect from the point gentlemen. This thread is here because a very crucial matter is awaiting a meaningful response.

Abbra Green | LPHI Secretary 

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:01 PM Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Wood,

Thanks for jumping in to a live controversy to ask why you are here. I enquired with our state secretary; your email was copied from a prior thread, where it had been unintentionally added, and later removed. She copied your email from an earlier point in the chain before your email was removed.

The original inclusion was my own fault, and it was not intentional. In the future, you may wish to consider that ignoring a thread in which you are disinterested is usually a better way than demanding to know why you were included in a conversation. Emails are not that much of a burden to professionals. 

I respect that your state was timely on the issue under discussion, leading the way in passing a resolution that supports affiliate rights. Respectfully, it really seems unfortunate that you feel you have no business in a thread where those rights are being shredded by your own region reps as they make false claims that others are speaking for your state. 

Do you know why they would believe something like that? They have, so far, refused to be accountable for why they made that claim, or to provide any specifics. Perhaps you can enlighten me? 

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Reese Wood <ch...@lpwi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2026 15:34:17
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Cc: ken.moellman <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>; lphise...@gmail.com <lphise...@gmail.com>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

 

I would like to inquire why is Wisconsin being included in this email thread? We have no business here as far as Im aware. 

Reese Wood

Chair

ch...@lpwi.org

---- On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:00:53 -0500 austin...@lp.org wrote ----

Ken,

Your admissions here are shocking.

You admit above that you unilaterally raised a dilatory bar against members and affiliates whose status you could, in fact, verify — solely because they spoke in their proper capacity as representatives of their affiliates. Your alleged chain of "reasoning" for your behavior here is completely and utterly nonsensical to me. Unintelligible. 

Ken, it is simple: due process is a right, not a privilege. 

The bylaws directly and explicitly contradict your changing story. "Interested parties" have RIGHTS to uphold their interests; it is not a discretionary privilege which a biased chair can simply dispose on his own naked discretion. Interested parties, include all state affiliates, and each has a right to appear and weigh in on the rule you are proposing to implement for our destruction. Your narrowing of the scope of the word "interested" is a misrepresentation. There is not even one single point of authority to support your tortured hermeneutic. 

Similarly, no matter how drunk on power folks get, we have no authority to rule an email "dilatory" outside of a session. Nor do any of your factional friends have a right to silence dissent by fraudulently characterizing legitimate speech as an ethics violation. This is simply fraud. It's bullying. It's abuse. Your behavior has no defense and makes no sense. 

Quo warranto? 

Austin Martin

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

~ 

PS: Purging all the State Parties you don't like is bad, mmm'kay?

---

From: ken.mo...@lpstates.com <ken.mo...@lpstates.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 2:08:23 PM
To: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Cc: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; lphitr...@gmail.com <lphitr...@gmail.com>; chair <ch...@lptn.org>; chair <ch...@lporegon.org>; chair <ch...@lpwi.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Don’t Dues-Gate Our Rights

Abbra,

I am going to consider future communication on this matter dilatory and treat such future correspondence accordingly.

LPNH is the appellant. They speak through their chosen representative, who is supposed to be a sustaining member of the party as well, but I don't think legal counsel can be excluded. The bylaws give them certain rights in the process.

The LNC is the respondent. They speak through their chosen representative, who will likely be a sustaining member though I don't know who they've chosen. The bylaws give them certain rights in the process.

Sustaining members can file amicus briefs, as a privilege of being a sustaining member, within the Judicial Committee rules.  And yes, your membership rights are, in fact, a "subscription service". The bylaws themselves create tiers of membership and grant certain rights and privileges accordingly.  For instance, an LNC member must be a sustaining member. 

This isn't hard. Assuming that Mr. Martin or any of the other LNC members with concerns about this amicus brief submission are themselves a sustaining member - which is a requirement to serve on the LNC - one or more of them could have submitted the resolutions as an amicus brief as (a) sustaining member(s) of the party.

It's not partisan. We also rejected an amicus brief submitted under a known fictitious name by a sustaining member. A submission by a sustaining member requires being able to identify the sustaining member. That amicus brief was then submitted instead by a sustaining member who was positively identified.

The JC email forwarder is for submitting appeals, responses, and amicus briefs; documents outlined in the bylaws and rules. It is not for dilatory spam that consumes time which currently should be used to examine evidence and prepare for a hearing.

Thank you,

Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee