An email exchange on the LNC Public list vanished. Part of it later rose from the grave.
The LNC-Public list featured a question by Keith Thompson followed by an exchange between Thompson, LNC Chair Evan McMahon, and Regional Representatives Austin Martin and Alfa Shaw.
At the end, the emails all vanished from the LNC-Public list. On looking, I received a 404 warning. The first and last messages in the exchange then reappeared on the LNC Public List.
We thank a prominent LNC member and other friends, who were not parties to this conversation, for ensuring that we received the following messages. Note that the time stamps on the messages were not completely consistent, but we believe that the following order is approximately correct.
Keith Thompson <9AM> first wrote:
Subject: New Mexico Questions
Good afternoon,
I’m hoping to get clarification on a few items regarding the LPNM:
Does the injunction, while in effect, prevent them from running candidates? My understanding is that their ballot drive must be completed in July – is that correct?
If the injunction isn’t lifted before then, would this hamper their ballot access chances for 2028?
If we enter into mediation, court-ordered or otherwise, what is it that we hope to get that the LPNM was not previously willing to offer?
To what extent can we reach out, and how have we reached out this term?
I think both sides want to get our affiliate back, however that has to happen.
The LPNM has ~14k members; they have funds (at least presently); they have name recognition; they have Gary friggin’ Johnson; they have candidates and a history of running them. That’s a lot of value, and if they’re willing to come home, I would love to welcome them back.
So what are the sticking points here, and what is the most unburdened way we can reach out to find compromise and a path forward?
I do not want us to be stuck in a holding pattern where our demands are unknown and we simply press forward with legal action, having no publicly-known end game.
If the goal is to destroy the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, and I hope it’s not, then that’s one thing.
But if the goal is to get our historic affiliate back home, let them turn their resources to a libertarian future and not legal defense, and reconcile our past issues, then I believe we need to change directions. At the very least, we need better communication of the base issues in play.
What do we want?
What can we do outside of legal action?
Can we, as board members, reach out?
I, and others here, have a relationship with Chris Luchini and his counsel – are we permitted to reach out and try to find a path forward?
With the law, comes red tape – and I don’t know the limits of what we can do. But I don’t want our organization so paralized by procedure that we sue those willing to come back, fighting against an organization that should rightfully be fighting alongside us.
At the very least, should we not bare plain the wishes of our body, so no more legal hours are consumed than are necessary – especially if candidate deadlines are quickly approaching?
I’m not saying there have been no past mistakes from either faction, and I don’t want this to devolve into rehashing the reasons for their disaffiliation, the wisdom of it, which side is right, or various alleged behaviors. We need a way forward – together.
I don’t think any of us want our Party or theirs to spend more on legal action than is needed, or to drag this our longer than we must.
I believe both sides want a way out.
Let’s find it.
In Liberty,
Keith Thompson
———————-
National Chair Evan McMahon responded
Mr. Thompson,
This is a confidential legal matter and is not for the public list.
In Liberty,
Evan
———————
National Chair McMahon <12:20> responded:
Mr. Martin,
I deemed this thread confidential and my reply started with that instruction that it was confidential and not to be shared – you do not have the authority to just overrule that. You do not get to decide for this body what is confidential litigation discussion and what is not. Your action to forward those confidential messages to the public list is out of order.
In Liberty,
Evan
———————–
to which Martin <10:23> added:
Mr. Chair,
You lack the authority to cover up misconduct by “deeming” it a secret.
This path you are choosing will lead to lawsuit between you and I, and I am highly confident in my position, on advice of counsel. I urge you to stop the abuse of secrecy to cover up misconduct.
I am afraid I am quite serious about this.
Austin Martin
——————
At this point Alfa Shaw, Regional Representative, entered to remark
Greetings,
The way this situation looks to me is as follows:
This all began when LPNM, being unhappy with the LNC leadership elected in ’22 left the national party. They became a founding member of a rival political party, disparaged the national party, and has illegally continued to use our name.
As I’ve mentioned to other LNC members in discussions on this topic, there should be a cost to those actions.
That being said, the end goal of all of this must be a strong affiliate in New Mexico and a process to get there that is legitimate.
To this end, the groups should probably merge, under FNM’s umbrella and bylaws. My Outlook is that if the Luchini group wants leadership, they will have to prevail at the next NM convention.
Suspension of the injunction or lawsuit should not be a matter up for negotiation as a precondition of merger. It should only be terminated After the merger is completed and ink has dried. Otherwise, the leverage goes away, and a bait/switch scenario could ensue.
Remember that a strong legitimate affiliate in NM in the future, that will have ballot access for ’28 is the goal here.
Bear in mind that the larger group will likely sweep the officer elections at the next convention after a merger were to be completed.
I’d be interested in knowing if there is any conceivable path where candidates in that state who were (before the injunction) running as Libertarian could still run, and the ballot access be credited to FNM or to a yet to be created replacement organization.
If the answer is that “No, only LPNM would receive the ballot access therefore FNM must join them”, then its likely a non-starter.
I’d like to see the Chair of FNM copied in to this conversation to weigh in, if thats possible.
Alfa Shaw
Region 6
——————
Shaw then asked
This email forward is addressed only to “LNC Board”.
Does anyone know if continuing this discussion in this forward will keep it internal, with replies going only to this one, and not to the public email chain it comes from?
—————-
Thompson said
If it’s just the LNC Board group, it’ll be off-list.
—————-
Shaw added:
Good, now the discussion can begin.
————————————–
To this Evan McMahon wrote:
At this time, I am not ok with written communications being shared outside of this board. Mr. Scott is in contact with our attorneys and the litigation committee. When it is time for a discussion in Executive Session, I will – with the body’s approval – have Mr. Scott participate.
I would also say that the impetus for the decision of the LPNM to disaffiliate, as described by Mr. Shaw, is not completely accurate. I do believe that leadership in LPNM felt they were being targeted and pushed by the LNC in 2022. Their decision to stay apart from both FNMP and the LNC until after the GR convention is likely more inline with that assertion.
Ballot access and registered voters held by LPNM could not be moved to FNMP by court action or any other mechanism if there was a merger of LPNM into FNMP.
Evan
Austin Martin said
Mr. Thompson,
Your question:
You ask whether board members can reach out to Chris Luchini and his counsel to find a path forward. Before the board entertains that question, a more basic one has to be answered: whether members with a personal relationship to the opposing party should be shaping our posture toward that party at all.
You have disclosed that you, and others here, have a relationship with Mr. Luchini and his counsel. You said:
“I, and others here, have a relationship with Chris Luchini and his counsel – are we permitted to reach out and try to find a path forward?”
I take you at your word, and I appreciate the candor. But that disclosure is precisely why this cannot proceed the way you propose.
A board member who is personally close to the adverse party should not be steering negotiations with that party, nor framing the board’s options around reconciliation, while litigation is active. If the positions were reversed and this were the McArdle matter, with her friends and allies setting the tone for settlement talks, I do not believe this board would accept it. The standard cannot change based on who the friend is. Oliver Hall’s continued negligence towards our board’s health on conflict-related matters does not mitigate the officer’s liability, regardless of how he has advised you in private.
In re: misrepresentations of fact
On the merits, the picture you described and the record diverge in important ways.
We did not lose this case. A federal court granted the LNC a preliminary injunction against the Liberal Party at the highest standard of review. That is not a stalemate or a holding pattern. That is a court finding we are likely to prevail.
The factual record also now includes Mr. Luchini’s own recorded admission of coordination with the New Mexico Secretary of State, the same democrat officeholder that helped deny our recognized affiliate its ballot access and its presidential line and forbade the use of our own name. One day after the court’s ruling, that Secretary of State cancelled her campaign for Lieutenant Governor. I do not present that timing as proof of anything beyond what it is. It is a documented sequence, and members are capable of drawing their own
conclusions.
Given that record, “what do we want” is not actually unclear. We want what the injunction already moves us toward: restoration of our affiliate’s rights, its name, and its ballot access, on terms that do not reward the conduct the court has now provisionally found against. Reaching out informally, through board members personally connected to the other side, before the case concludes, does not advance that. It risks surrendering the leverage the court just handed us. It is sabotage.
I want to be clear about what I am and am not saying. I am not saying board members cannot have relationships with people on the other side. They can. I am saying those relationships disqualify those same members from voting on or conducting these specific negotiations. That is an ordinary conflict-of-interest principle, and applying it protects both those members and the LP from avoidable legal and reputational exposure.
One procedural note for Mr. Chair. This exchange began on the public list. It is not a privileged or executive-session discussion, and I do not think it should be retroactively treated as one. The conflicts at issue here are exactly the kind members are entitled to see disclosed. If the board wishes to discuss actual litigation strategy, that conversation should be properly noticed as confidential. The question of who is conflicted out of that conversation, however, is a matter of governance, and belongs in the open.
Accordingly I have restored the public list on this email.
I share the desire to see our New Mexico affiliate whole again. We differ on how. I believe the way to get there is to let the case we are winning do its work, with negotiations handled by members who carry no personal tie to the other side.
Austin Martin
———————–
Be First to Comment