I will be posting amici in the order that they find them. There is a new amicus from Caryn Ann Harlos that touches on points not discussed elsewhere. It is long and full of graphics in its exhibits so its full form is supplied as an attachment.
Of particular interest here is LaROUCHE v. FOWLER (1998)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/1115890.html
Amicus of Michael Seebeck
1. This is an amicus filed in support of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) regarding the disaffiliation of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH), done at the post-convention LNC meeting on May 25, 2026.
REGARDING NOTICE
2. Article 5 Section 61 does not require notice. However, a motion to disaffiliate is essentially a motion to Rescind. Per Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR) 10:452, notice for that motion is required to have the motion be passed by a majority vote. For an un-noticed motion, the motion is required to have either a 2/3 vote or a majority of the entire membership to be passed. See RONR 35:2(7)3 The LNC vote was 15-2-1, with no absences, so 2/3 was 12/17 and a majority of the membership of the LNC is 10/18. Abstentions do not count towards the vote totals.
3. Therefore notice is irrelevant as the vote threshold exceeded the thresholds required for either notice or lack thereof. Any argument by appellant to lack of notice should be disregarded.
REGARDING ACTIONS OF COLORADO
4. Appellants argue in paragraphs 1-3 that while the Libertarian Party of Colorado violated the Bylaws in their treatment of Robert Kennedy, no disaffiliation or censure action was taken. Appellants are clearly engaging in “whataboutsim” that has zero impact or affinity to the present case. Whether or not the LNC decides to pursue action against LPCO in the future is unknown, but it is also irrelevant.
1 Article 5 Section 6: “The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.”
2 RONR 10:45: “Motions that have the effect of changing or nullifying previous action of the assembly—such as the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), the motion to Discharge a Committee (36), or a motion to postpone an event already scheduled—require previous notice if they are to be adopted by only a majority vote.”
3 RONR 35:2(7): “In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice.”
REGARDING CAUSE
5. The cause is clear: On July 2, 2024, LPNH endorsed Republican Trump. Article 5 Section 4 of the Bylaws states explicitly that endorsement is prohibited. Any argument by appellants that this was not a Bylaws violation or is not cause should be disregarded.
REGARDING ARGUMENTS ABOUT INVESTIGATORY COMMITTEES FOR LPNH
6. Appellants contend in paragraphs 19-28 and 35-36 that instead of disaffiliation, an investigatory committee should be formed similar to the one that occurred in 2021 regarding LPNH and the former LNC Chair Bishop-Henchman. The investigatory committee of 2021, however, was into the actions of the LNC Chair, not LPNH, and therefore is irrelevant to these proceedings. It should also be noted that investigatory committee proceedings as outlined in RONR 63 et seq applies to individuals and not organizations, so it is also not relevant here.
REGARDING ARGUMENTS ABOUT DISAFFILIATION
7. Appellants contend in paragraph 39 that “LPNH—the November 2024 vote by some former LPNH leaders to endorse Donald Trump—does not constitute “cause” to disaffiliate the current LPNH. That endorsement never reflected the views of most LPNH members, none of the officers who voted for it holds any leadership role in LPNH today,…” That the current leadership of LPNH is not the same as the leadership that made the endorsement is irrelevant for one simple reason: the vote was to disaffiliate the LPNH organization, not the leadership of it. The endorsement belongs to the organization and not the individuals running it.
SUMMARY
8. The arguments presented by Appellants are not only unconvincing, but they admit to the violation that led to the vote to disaffiliate. Again, in their appeal they admit guilt, and then try to rationalize it through various arguments and spin that simply fail on their face.
4 The petition of appeal itself admits it in paragraphs 4 through 6, and admits that the endorsement was done “wrongly and improperly.” Such admission now does not change the action made then. Article 5, Section 4: “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of Principles or these bylaws.”
9. This is a straightforward open-and shut case and the appeal should be denied: the appellants violated the Bylaws and the direct wording of the Bylaws preclude any other interpretation. Everything else is just irrelevant and unnecessary noise.
Michael Seebeck
Judicial Committee Secretary, previous term.
A Friend of the Judicial Committee Statement by George Phillies, D. Sc.
The appeal of the New Hampshire former affiliate should be rejected. The matter speaks for itself. There can be no doubt the Libertarian party of New Hampshire, acting through its executive committee however titled, endorsed the Republican Donald Trump. Under our party bylaws, an affiliate party is not allowed to endorsed candidates of another party. It is the privilege of the National Committee to determine which action should be taken against an affiliate party which violates this bylaw. The Libertarian National Committee chose to disaffiliate the group calling itself “Libertarian Party of New Hampshire”.
Let us consider the actual appeal from LPNH. The appeal begins with references to actions of the Libertarian party of Colorado. Those actions and the LNC response are not before this Judicial Committee.
The Trump endorsement of the LPNH was carried out by its Executive Committee, but the Executive Committee is the instrumentality through which the LPNH acts. Changing membership of the Executive Committee does not alter the fact that the LPNH as an affiliate, in violation of our bylaws, endorsed Trump. It is irrelevant that at some later date the LPNH elected new officers or changed their mind about the endorsement. If a bank absconds with its depositor’s money, the fact that the bank officers have since been changed is not a legal defense for the bank.
The appeal then complains that the LNC did not establish an investigatory committee prior to its vote on disaffiliation. However, there is nothing to investigate. The charge is that the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire endorsed Donald Trump. No sane person can deny that this statement is true. That action is sufficient grounds for disaffiliation.
The appeals and wanders into a discussion of how individual members or officers might be expelled. That’s not at issue here. No individual members or officers were expelled or suspended.
With respect to an investigation, we are considering a civil matter, in which the traditional doctrine res ipsa loquitur – the things speaks for itself – is helpful. The LPNH has no possible defense to the charge.
The appeal proposes “[i]f an expulsion has been decreed for acts not constituting violations of the constitution and by-laws”. However, the charge was a violation of the letter of the bylaws. Furthermore, the appeal confesses – points 54 and 55 — that the LPNH did endorse Trump. That was the basis for the expulsion, and the appellant agrees that they did it. The hypothetical is irrelevant.
The appeal then artfully raises a red herring, namely that the officers of the LPNH havechanged. However the action was not undertaken against those officers, it was undertaken against the former stateaffiliate. The group being sanctioned is the former state affiliate, not the particular officers.
The appeal complains that no action has been taken against the Libertarian party of Colorado. This is a red herring. First, the correct statement is that no action has been taken against the Libertarian Party of Colorado yet. Second, if I am charged with having robbed a bank, the observation that a member of the Judicial Committee has been arrested for robbing two banks is not something I can raise in my defense.
The appeal then complains that the LNC did not form an investigatory committee before acting. However in the cases of, for example, National Chair Henchman or former National Chair McArdle, the LNC was viewing actions of a single person that involved a complex history. In the case of the LPNH, the action was transparent, and the appellant has confessed guilt. There was and is nothing to investigate.
The motions of Shaw and Martin to form such committees were transparently dilatory, because they could’ve had no possible path to generate a defense for the appellant. Indeed, an investigatory committee would have generated an extremely long report filled with the abusive and disgraceful comments of the former stated affiliate on its social platform onX.com, which would’ve made its position even worse.
The claimant that the disaffiliation disenfranchises the LPNH is false. With respect to the national party, the LPNH members sent a delegation to the 2026 national convention. That convention is over. Those delegates have no further authority. The members of the LPNH would have no ability to elect delegates until 2028, the date of the next national convention. With respect to the national party, there is no franchise to have lost. Furthermore, if the members of the LPNH claim that they have repented of their grave errors in endorsing Donald Trump, they have two years in which to run libertarians for office as Libertarians, to organize Libertarian groups that advocate for Libertarian political positions, campaign against Republicans adn Democrats, and in other ways demonstrate that their repentance is honest.
The Judicial Committee should reject the appeal on the grounds that the appellant has confessed that one of the charges against the appellant was true. With respect to the procedural issues, the appellant cannot plausibly argue that an alternative appeal procedure would not have developed the same facts that were already well known to the Libertarian National Committee.
Amicus of Jake Leonard
IN THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
In RE: Revocation of Affiliate Status of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of the Libertarian National Committee’s May 25, 2026, Decision and in Opposition to the Petition for Review and Reversal
I. Statement of Interest
Amicus submits this brief to assist the Judicial Committee in preserving the Libertarian Party’s institutional integrity, electoral viability, and capacity for coherent national governance.
The National Committee’s decision to revoke recognition of an affiliate whose official conduct included a direct violation of Article 5, Section 4 and a sustained pattern of publicly damaging official messaging was a lawful exercise of authority under the Party’s Bylaws.
Amicus has no personal or financial stake in the outcome but does have a substantial interest in ensuring that the Party’s governing documents are interpreted in a manner that preserves both accountability and the Party’s practical ability to protect its name, ballot line, and public standing.
II. Summary of Argument
The Petitioner does not meaningfully dispute the existence of the central facts before the Libertarian National Committee (LNC): the 2024 endorsement occurred, it was made in the affiliate’s official capacity, and it formed part of a broader public record of messaging the LNC could reasonably view as incompatible with continued affiliation.
Instead, the Petitioner advances three theories: first, that later leadership changes cleanse the affiliate of responsibility for earlier official acts; second, that Article 5, Section 6 required an investigatory committee or quasi-trial before the LNC could act; and third, that the LNC could not rely on the broader public record unless each item had been separately reduced to a formal bill of particulars.
Each theory fails. An affiliate is a continuing entity, not a temporary collection of officers, and voluntary associations routinely treat official acts as attributable to the organization rather than erasable through electoral turnover. The phrase “for cause” in Article 5, Section 6 does not silently import the full mechanics of judicial process into party governance, particularly where the Bylaws themselves do not specify those procedures and the LNC acted in open session on a public record.
And because the question before the LNC was whether continued affiliation remained consistent with the interests and reputation of the national Party, the LNC was entitled to consider the affiliate’s widely known official conduct rather than pretending the 2024 endorsement occurred in isolation.
These errors all stem from treating an external affiliation decision as if it were internal member discipline. This Committee should decline the invitation to micromanage the LNC’s political judgment and should affirm the disaffiliation.
III. Argument
A. The affiliate remains responsible for its own official acts despite changes in officers
The Petitioner’s central premise is that the November 2024 endorsement should be discounted because the officers responsible for that action no longer hold the same positions.
That premise is incompatible with Article 5, Section 4’s language, a proper prohibition of affiliate parties endorsing opposition candidates. It is an institutional prohibition applied equally.
The Petitioner’s contrary theory would make enforcement of Article 5, Section 4 largely illusory. If an affiliate violates the Bylaws, replaces its officers, and insists that the violation has become juridically irrelevant, the national Party will have no meaningful way to enforce the rule. It is merely an attempt at desperation by an affiliate to evade accountability through ordinary turnover. That reading would not merely soften the rule; it would nullify it in practice.
The law governing voluntary associations points in the same direction. Courts commonly describe the constitution and bylaws of a voluntary association as a contract that defines rights, duties, and institutional powers.
The Petitioner itself cites Polin v. Kaplan for that proposition, and the principle cuts against, not in favor of, the Petitioner’s position: an organization is bound by its own official acts and by the powers allocated in its governing rules.
Likewise, Campbell v. Loew’s, Inc. reflects the basic point that procedural fairness matters when removal is expressly for cause. However, it does not suggest that a corporation or association ceases to be answerable for an official act due to later personnel changes.
Voluntary-association doctrine is also deferential to internal governance decisions made under an organization’s own rules, especially where the dispute concerns political or associational judgment rather than deprivation of property by state action.
That is especially true here, where the question is whether a national political party must continue recognizing a state affiliate that, by the affiliate’s own minutes and public record, officially endorsed Donald Trump in 2024 in violation of Article 5, Section 4.
B. Article 5, Section 6 does not require a formal trial or investigatory committee in every case
The Petitioner argues that “for cause” required a confidential investigation, formal charges, notice, and a trial-like process drawn from the disciplinary discussion in Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR). That argument overreads both the Bylaws and RONR.
Article 5, Section 6 says the LNC may revoke affiliate status for cause and provides an appeal to this Committee, but it does not prescribe a mandatory investigatory committee, trial committee, or evidentiary hearing before the LNC may act.
Where governing documents enumerate power and create appellate review without specifying the detailed procedure Petitioner demands, the better reading is that the organization retains discretion to use reasonable procedures suited to the decision at hand, particularly when the decision concerns recognition of an affiliate rather than discipline of an individual member or officer.
RONR does not compel a different result. The very passage quoted by the Petitioner acknowledges that most ordinary societies will rarely hold formal trials and that disciplinary procedures should be tailored to organizational needs.
Here, the LNC met in open session, debated the motion, referenced both the endorsement and the affiliate’s broader official conduct, and issued written notice afterward. That process may not resemble civil litigation, but nothing in the Bylaws requires it to do so.
The Petitioner’s reliance on the Judicial Committee’s 2024 decision in Phillies v. LNC also does not carry the weight placed on it. Even as described by the Petition, that decision treated RONR as supplying a minimum behavioral baseline when a bylaw used the phrase “for cause” without further definition.
It did not hold that every exercise of “for cause” authority in every institutional context requires the same full set of trial procedures, regardless of the type of office, entity, or decision involved. Suspension of an officer and revocation of affiliate status are not identical governance problems, and this Committee should resist reading one context as mechanically controlling the other.
Nor does the 2021 Dixon Committee precedent become a universal constitutional requirement merely because it was once used. By the Petitioner’s own description, the Dixon model emerged from allegations of LNC interference in an internal state-party matter. That was rather a fact-specific response to a fact-specific controversy, not an amendment to Article 5, Section 6. To transform it into a mandatory prerequisite for every future affiliate disaffiliation would amount to adding language to the Bylaws that the membership never adopted.
C. The public record provided ample cause beyond the single endorsement
The Petitioner attempts to cabin this case to a single question: whether the 2024 Trump endorsement alone justified disaffiliation. But the LNC’s motion did not describe only the endorsement; it also referred to repeated official-level anti-Libertarian positions, and the record available to the LNC included years of public messaging and controversy surrounding the affiliate’s official channels.
An organization charged with protecting its own name and affiliations need not behave as if it were blind to facts that are public, notorious, and directly relevant to reputational harm. The LNC was entitled to consider the overall course of official conduct bearing on whether continued affiliation was tenable. The Petitioner’s demand for a fully itemized charge sheet cataloging every post, statement, or controversy mistakes appellate review for criminal pleading.
The case authorities that the Petitioner cites do not compel such rigidity. Polin stands for the proposition that expulsions outside the powers granted by bylaws may be set aside, but here the LNC acted under an express grant of power in Article 5, Section 6.
The remaining dispute is not whether the LNC had any authority to act, but whether the record before it could constitute cause. Given the acknowledged violation of Article 5, Section 4 and the additional public controversies tied to official affiliate messaging, the answer is yes.
This Committee should also be cautious about adopting a rule that would require the LNC to ignore context unless every contextual fact has been separately enumerated in exhaustive detail before a vote. Such a rule would encourage procedural gamesmanship, reward affiliates creating sprawling public controversies through repeated provocations, and make it materially harder for the national Party to protect itself from ongoing reputational injury.
D. Media and brand impact are proper considerations in evaluating cause
The Petitioner understates the practical stakes of continued affiliation. This was not a dispute over a private internal disagreement that never escaped party channels; it involved official statements and official branding that were publicly attributed to the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and, by ordinary readers, associated with the Libertarian Party more broadly.
The LNC confronted not merely doctrinal disagreement but ongoing brand damage, voter confusion, and demoralization among members who expect a serious national political organization. Those concerns are not extraneous to Article 5, Section 6.
A national party’s decision whether to continue recognizing an affiliate necessarily includes the judgment whether the affiliate’s public conduct is compatible with the national Party’s reputation, message discipline, and electoral credibility.
That is particularly true in a modern media environment in which affiliate posts can circulate nationally within minutes, are routinely detached from internal context, and are often reported as representative of the larger party brand.
When an affiliate repeatedly generates national coverage for inflammatory official messaging, the damage is not confined to the affiliate’s state borders. It affects candidate recruitment, donor confidence, coalition-building, ballot-access efforts, and the public’s baseline understanding of
what the Party stands for. This reputational damage would bleed over into the other 49 state affiliates, as well as the territorial affiliate based in the District of Columbia.
The Judicial Committee need not decide whether every controversial post was correctly interpreted by outside observers. The relevant point is narrower and more institutional: the LNC was entitled to conclude that the cumulative public effect of the affiliate’s official communications had become materially harmful to the national Party’s public identity. Once that judgment is understood as part of the “for cause” analysis, the Petitioner’s insistence on treating the case as a sterile dispute over one endorsement becomes unpersuasive.
E. The requested relief would prolong rather than cure the identified harm
The fallback request for a Dixon-style committee would not materially clarify the core facts already before this Committee. The 2024 endorsement is acknowledged, the public record of official messaging exists, and the LNC’s deliberations were conducted openly and recorded. The practical effect of an additional committee would therefore be delay, not clarification.
That delay is not neutral. If the LNC concluded that continued affiliation itself was causing reputational and electoral harm, then preserving the status quo pending a duplicative inquiry would effectively disable the LNC from mitigating the very injury Article 5, Section 6 allows it to address.
Appellate review should test whether the LNC acted within its authority and on a sufficient basis, not require the national Party to remain publicly tethered to an affiliate while repetitive procedures unfold.
F. National party practice and the distinction between discipline and disaffiliation
National political parties routinely assert control over which state organizations and delegations they recognize when state-level conduct or rules clash with national standards.
In Cousins v. Wigoda, the Supreme Court affirmed that a national party’s choice of delegates under its own rules could not be displaced by state election codes, recognizing the primacy of national-party guidelines in questions of recognition and representation.
Combined with prior practice with the disaffiliation of the New Mexico and Virginia state affiliates in 2022, these examples show that the LNC’s decision to disaffiliate an affiliate is justified for whose official conduct it judged intolerable is squarely within mainstream national-party practice and judicially recognized associational autonomy.
The Petitioner repeatedly treats Article 5, Section 6 disaffiliation as if it were indistinguishable from internal discipline of individual officers, invoking Robert’s Rules trial procedures, Phillies v. LNC, and the Dixon Committee model. That framing is mistaken.
Internal discipline addresses the status of members and officers inside the Party—censure, suspension, or removal from offices they already hold. Disaffiliation, by contrast, addresses whether an external juridical entity continues to be recognized as the Libertarian Party’s affiliate in each jurisdiction and may use its name and logo. Article 5, Section 6 resides in the portion of the bylaws governing affiliate relationships and expressly authorizes the LNC to revoke that recognition “for cause.”
Because disaffiliation is a recognition decision rather than an internal member sanction, the Dixon Committee’s investigatory model and the RONR trial framework do not automatically apply in full. The LNC was obligated to act within its granted powers on a reasoned assessment of cause, not to replicate a formal trial on every item of public affiliate misconduct.
Treating disaffiliation as internal discipline would collapse this important distinction and effectively deprive the national Party of a practical tool for protecting its own name and ballot line from the official actions of separate state organizations.
IV. Conclusion
The Petitioner asks this Committee to adopt three propositions not found in the Bylaws: 1) that leadership turnover erases institutional violations, 2) that Article 5, Section 6 silently mandates a Dixon-style investigation or trial-like process in every case, and 3) that the LNC must ignore notorious public conduct unless it first compiles an exhaustive bill of particulars.
None of those propositions is supported by the governing text or by the limited authorities the Petition invokes.
The better reading is the straightforward one. The LNC possessed express authority to revoke affiliate status for cause; it relied on an undisputed Article 5, Section 4 violation together with a broader public course of official conduct, and it acted through an open deliberative process adequate to the needs of a voluntary political association.
In a voluntary political association whose members have expressly vested affiliation authority in the LNC, this Committee should be reluctant to substitute its own political judgment for that of the elected National Committee absent a clear violation of the Bylaws—and none is present here.
Because the decision fell within the LNC’s lawful authority and rested on a sufficient record, the Judicial Committee should affirm the disaffiliation and deny the Petition in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
Jake Leonard
July 3, 2026
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (“LPNH” or “Appellant”)
V.
LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (“LNC” or “Appellee”)
In re: Disaffiliation for Cause
AMICUS OF CARYN ANN HARLOS DATED JULY 4, 2026
IN SUPPORT OF LNC
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN PARTY
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (“JC”)
PREFACE
*Note: The appeal at times recites the same facts in multiple places. Any citation to the appeal does not imply that is the only reference, but it does reference at least one place in which the referenced assertion is made.
In principle, I support providing notice and a hearing (or an investigatory committee with a detailed written report) in matters such as this. However, my views on this are personal and aspirational political preferences, not a Bylaws requirement.
In this specific case, those sympathies vanish. LPNH has been repeatedly belligerent in its violations and has disregarded prior good-faith efforts by former Chair Steven Nekhaila and Communications Director Brian McWilliams to resolve the anti-Libertarian messaging issues. There were repeated public calls for disaffiliation by the LNC from Party members across the nation due to LPNH’s endorsement of Donald Trump and its atrocious social media behaviour. As a result, LPNH cannot credibly claim that it was blindsided, treated capriciously, or handled maliciously. It simply wanted a new forum and captive audience for its parade of horribles.
A clear distinction exists between revoking affiliate status [Bylaws Art. 5, Sec. 6] and removing an individual LNC member [Bylaws Art. 6, Sec. 7; Art. 7, Sec. 5]. Removing an LNC member typically overrides the will of the delegates who elected them. Revoking affiliation, by contrast, merely reverses a prior decision of the LNC itself [Bylaws Art. 5, Sec. 2; Art. 7, Sec. 3].
I urge the LNC to voluntarily adopt a Policy Manual procedure for notice and hearings in disaffiliations. However, unlike the removal of LNC members, no Bylaws provision requires it here. Affiliation is a voluntary association between two organizations that the LNC may sever for cause by a 3/4 vote of the entire LNC.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 1
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
The argument for a notice-and-hearing (trial) requirement for LNC members rests on the Bylaws’ description of terms of office [Bylaws Art. 1, Sec. 1; RONR (12th ed.) 62:16]. That position is a minority view and was settled by a Point of Order at the 2022 National Convention. No comparable argument applies to affiliation; thus, no Bylaws violation on those grounds is possible to be found now or in the future.
APPELLANT REQUESTS JC TO IMPERSSIBLY EXPAND ITS SCOPE
The LPNH enumerates three (3) Requests for Relief [Appeal Sec. IV]. Out of those requests, only number one (1) is within the JC’s power, to wit, reverse the LNC’s decision—”The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the National Committee’s revocation of affiliate party status or order reinstatement of the affiliate party” [Bylaws Art. 5, Sec. 6]. Item number three (3) is an automatic function of the Bylaws once an appeal is filed while the JC appeal is pending— “The affiliate party may challenge the revocation of its status by written appeal to the Judicial Committee within 30 days of receipt of notice of such revocation. Failure to appeal within 30 days shall confirm the revocation and bar any later challenge or appeal” [id.] Item number two (2) is completely outside its scope. The JC can only affirm revocation or order reinstatement, nothing further.1
SELF-DEFEATING CHALLENGE TO VALIDITY OF JC
LPNH states that it “reserves its right to challenge the manner in which the present Judicial Committee was formed;” [Appeal fn5] however, it has no such right. After the first round of voting at the 2026 national Libertarian Party convention when only two (2) JC members were elected having a majority of votes, then LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila ruled that the rules provided that there would be only one round of voting and that those two (2) elected members would select the remaining members. That ruling was appealed from by delegates andsubsequently sustained.2 Once the convention adjourned sine die, that was the decision of the delegates. LPNH is not a superior body to the convention delegates.
1 In its Prayer for Relief [Appeal Sec. VII] it expands these requests to six (6), but two (2) of the additional three (3) requests are merely procedural (confirm receipt and timely set hearing) while the remaining one (1) is just catch-all legalese as if this were a court case (further relief as this Committee deems just and proper). The JC has no authority to grant “further relief.”
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 2
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
Assuming arguendo that the JC is not legitimate, then this appeal is moot, and LPNH just gave authority to the LNC to disregard any unfavorable decision. If it is not granting that right to the LNC, it cannot coyly “reserve” that right for itself, wasting everyone’s time by announcing that it will accept a favorable decision as coming from a legitimate body but reject an unfavorable one. It must make its choice. If the JC is not legitimate, the disaffiliation is affirmed and final—”Failure of the Judicial Committee to rule within 30 days shall constitute an affirmation of the National Committee’s revocation of affiliate party status” [Bylaws Art. 5, Sec. 6]. In short, LPNH has pre-announced that if it loses, it will attack the JC’s legitimacy. However, if the JC is illegitimate, it has already lost.
THE “YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT HIM” DEFENSE
LPNH attempts to deflect blame from itself by pointing to the Libertarian Party of Colorado’s (“LPCO”) attempt to place Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK, Jr.) on its ballot line in place of the official Libertarian Party ticket [Appeal ¶¶1-3, 62].3 And…? The LPCO was undoubtedly wrong. There is no Bylaw requiring disaffiliation in every instance; it is discretionary to the LNC. While there’s no question that the LNC had the authority to disaffiliate LPCO over the RFK Jr. situation, it also had the discretionary power not to—both under its own Bylaws and standard corporate business judgment. Further, though the LPNH tries (wrongly) to claim that its Trump endorsement was the only grounds for its disaffiliation, it expressly was not.
Business prudence counsels letting an affiliate attempt to resolve issues on its own prior to severing relationships. LPNH was well aware of the messaging and endorsement issues. It continued with its damaging messaging for long after amicable intervention attempts were made. It was aware for years that the Trump endorsement was against the Bylaws… yet it did nothing to repudiate until AFTER it faced the consequences. It could have done so at any point leading up to the disaffiliation vote if that action aggrieved so many members including their current Chair who is not known to be shy about his opinions. It is certainly true that certain LPNH members vehemently did not agree. It is equally true that those members have not been successful in correcting the direction of LPNH and have purportedly not been treated fairly or given level playing field to do so.
2 As minutes are not yet available, even in draft form as the prescribed deadline for their production has not passed, I am arguing from memory in good faith.
3 For the sake of accuracy I note that Appeal ¶1 is factually incorrect in its dates but it doesn’t impact the underlying point. The July 2, 2024 vote was declared void by the LPCO and redone in August, 2024.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 3
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
In contrast, the membership of LPCO was successful and thus proactively corrected LPCO’s path obviating the need to sever the relationship. I, as a member, sued the LPCO over the issue. Other members organized a slate of candidates to run for the LPCO board specifically on the issue of repudiating not just the RFK, Jr. endorsement, but any perceived “soft endorsements” for Colorado Republicans via the Liberty Pledge [see Exhibit 1]. The main architects of those schemes are not only no longer in leadership, they are now registered with the Democratic and Republican parties. LPCO members did this without needing a disaffiliation to prompt them. Additionally, these members, including members who were elected as the current LPCO Chair and Vice-Chair (Keith Laube and Doug Jones) voted on June 28, 2025, to specifically condemn the RFK, Jr. endorsement, the board that did so, and opine that the former LPCO Chair (Hannah Goodman) and Executive Director (James Wiley) were unfit for future service [see Exhibit 2].4
So there is an objective and sound business judgment reason for the LNC to forgo any action against the LPCO. It would serve no purpose. LPCO did not remain obstinate, it self-corrected, and it did not force the LNC’s hand. There was a serious lapse, believably encouraged by the former LNC Chair Angela McArdle
This amicus is not going to argue into the weeds of whether this Resolution was adopted at a valid convention (which is disputed by the former Board and the subject of a disputed LPCO JC appeal) as it is not necessary to show the timeline of the successful efforts towards the re-alignment of the LPCO. This Resolution was either a Resolution of a valid convention or a Resolution of dozens of members who traveled to a remote location in Colorado to make their wishes known. Most of current leadership of the LPCO was elected from that body at an undisputed October 2025 convention during which Laube and Jones campaigned openly on condemning the RFK, Jr. breach. The extent of effort of these delegates is important. This meeting was set in Holyoke, Colorado, the hometown of the former LPCO Chair. Holyoke is an extremely rural town (population of just over 2,000) in the Northeast plains of Colorado—an average distance of 200 miles from Colorado population centers and just 13 miles from the Nebraska state line. It is an understatement to state it was inconvenient.
[see Exhibit 3] and her open “quid pro quo kingmaker strategy,” that was corrected voluntarily.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 4
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
That said, the LNC would be fully within its rights to disaffiliate LPCO, yet there is a clear, well-articulated business-judgment rationale for choosing not to. If it had remained a bad actor, the principled membership here would have welcomed disaffiliation so that they could re-affiliate with the LNC under situations in which the affiliate holds to the electoral purpose of the Party to nominate and support Libertarian candidates.
PADDING OF DIVERSIONARY FACTS
Who occupies leadership seats of an organization is not the same thing as the organization qua organization. If one were to take that argument to its logical extent, the LNC members that originally chartered the LPNH have been gone for fifty years, so this LNC should not have to be responsible for that decision. Organizations persist while leadership changes. The LPNH argues out of both sides of its mouth by claiming that this LNC is not following a procedure in an unrelated manner ordered by the 2021 LNC which has only one member in common (out of 18) with the current LNC. Its argument is invalid on other grounds, but it cannot consistently follow its own standards.
However, there is a serious erosion of credibility. The appeal paints Mr. Kauffman as this vanguard of opposition [Appeal fn3] but his public conduct at that time paints a very different picture [see Exhibit 4]. There is also a profound lack of sincerity in their post-disaffiliation “renunciation.” In fact, when laying the public record for their anticipated defense, LPNH demonstrated it was a facade of sincerity [see Exhibit 5].
Additionally, LPNH insinuates there was a change in philosophy following the 2025 convention and the election of new leadership [Appeal VI.1.ff]. However, their future Chair Ben Weir ran on a platform of snubbing national Bylaws [see Exhibit 6]. No Bylaws proposals were heard that convention, but Weir never repudiated those positions, and was elected openly advocating them (in stark contrast to their attempted conflation with LPCO). While Weir may or may not have opposed the Trump endorsement, as the new Chair of the LPNH he did not oppose endorsing candidates from other parties. LPNH was not disaffiliated because the Bylaws prohibit endorsing Trump specifically, but a member of another political party.5
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 5
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
These are shown just to show that the representations made about the Trump endorsement and Mr. Kauffman lack credibility. The JC is going to need to judge the trustworthiness of the parties in weighing their claims, particularly those that are less susceptible to documentary proof, and at numerous places the representations made by LPNH do not align with reality.
Further diversion (and actually LPNH unwittingly undermines itself) is created by mentioning the September 2025 motion to censure brought by At-Large Representative Samuel Bohler.6 The LPNH claims that it was some subtle joke/poke by Kauffman (who is Jewish) about Jewish animus. A political party is not a plaything for inside jokes but for clear messaging. Additionally the Bohler motion mentioned not only the offensive depictions of Jews as being responsible for 9/11, but also homophobic slurs. The Chair of LPNH (Ben Weir) was on the LNC at that time as Region 6 Alternate. He did not mention this actually being a critique of anti-Semitism at all [id.] Weir did agree that there are issues with messaging and acknowledged that Nekhaila and Kauffman have had discussions about it7 (thus LPNH was in fact on notice in addition to the censure—it immediately violated all promises they made to Nekhaila and put out a gaslighting statement that if, and only if, other Party members in their personal capacities never insulted it, it, in its official capacities would not use slurs against them—see Exhibit 7—and continued in such conduct—see Exhibit 8). The LPNH was aware of messaging issues, and the issue of the Trump endorsement, and did nothing to remediate. LPNH can state that “no new conduct between September 19, 2025 and May 25, 2026 was cited,” but it conveniently did not claim that no new conduct happened. Because it did [see Exhibit 9].
Lastly, the discussion over unfairness of corporate “punishment” on an organization (in this case an affiliate) for actions of its leaders is nonsensical. The leaders direct the acts of the organization as an organization is not itself capable of acting as it is not a real person. This line of logic leads only to the idea that it would never be proper to disaffiliate as it would always be a judgment upon the actions of the organization as directed by individuals. The Amicus filed by Jake Leonard ably dealt with the incoherence of meaning enfranchisement in the context of an affiliate [Appeal ¶62]]
5 A one-time note here that should apply throughout: The motion to disaffiliate LPNH had two causes listed and a reference to one cause does not deny the existence of the other [see Appeal ¶20 and Appeal Ex. A].
6 https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public/c/gfefLjKqRMc/m/UIIhh44_AAAJ
7 https://thirdpartywatch.com/2025/05/16/full-text-of-weir-letter-to-lnc/
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 6
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
THE LPNH MISCASTS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BYLAWS
The LPNH states that “no other specific allegations [other than the Trump endorsement] were ever recited in the May 25 discussion, the text of the May 25 motion, or in the June 4 letter of disaffiliation.” [Appeal ¶33] That is an intentional attempt to paint those actions as deficient, but the LPNH never cites the exact Bylaw. I will [emphasis added —Bylaws Art. 5 Sec. 6]:
The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire
National Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.
Did the motion specify the nature of the cause for revocation? Yes. In addition to the endorsement of Trump, it stated “Furthermore, they have crudely and repeatedly undermined our own candidates, and have espoused numerous anti-libertarian positions on a National level.” [Appeal Ex. A] As much as LPNH may wish it otherwise [Appeal ¶43], the Bylaws do not say that specific allegations need to be included in the motion, it says the motion must specify the nature of the cause. The Leonard Amicus deals with the public and known background of the anti-Libertarian messaging, so I will not repeat that argument here.
The Bylaws further anticipate that it is the JC that must hold a hearing at which “persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument.” [Bylaws Art. 5, Sec. 6] That does not preclude the LNC from doing that as well, but the JC judges the Bylaws, and there is no Bylaws argument that it is required to do so. LPNH’s argument that the allowance of the parties to submit evidence and argument somehow requires that the LNC have list of particulars or “there would be nothing for this Committee to review” is unintelligible [Appeal ¶44]. What the Committee reviews is… the evidence and argument that is submitted. The Bylaws allowance specifically allows unqualified evidence to be submitted; it is not limited to reviewing some past listing of evidence.
LPNH is correct that each phrase in the Bylaws is chosen for some purpose. In this case those phrases are “A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation” and “persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument [before the JC].” The lack of language is just as important as the presence [RONR (12th ed.) 56:11]: in this case the lack of specific language requiring outside evidence and argument before the LNC.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 7
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
It rests first upon the good judgment of the LNC acting as managers of the Party whether there is cause; and then it rests upon the Judicial Committee to evaluate the judgment of the LNC after hearing evidence and argument with a presumption in favor of the LNC. I don’t care for that presumption but that was the decision of the delegates at convention.
MISLEADING NARRATIVE ABOUT THE 2021 (DIXON)8 INVESTIGATORY COMMITTEE AND IGNORING DIRECT PARALLELS
LPNH claims that a 2021 investigatory committee “articulated an institutional ‘model of investigating internal issues.‘” [Appeal ¶35]. It did no such thing. The 2021 investigatory committee dealt with one specific incident and investigated the reasons for the declaration of an entirely new LPNH with new bylaws and suspected involvement of the then LNC Chair Joe Bishop-Henchman.9 It is telling that the LPNH did not look towards the last disaffiliation motion by the LNC, that of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico in September 2022 for which there was no investigatory committee.10 Additionally in 2021 there were claims of a constructive disaffiliation of Delaware which were brought to the Judicial
8 I am compelled to note the strategic naming of the 2021 investigatory committee as the “Dixon Committee” with Dixon being a member of the JC. It would have seemed less prejudicial to use a neutral designation instead of appearing to flatter a JC member for its purpose. No doubt everyone agrees that Dixon discharged his duties admirably at that difficult time.
9 https://mywikis-wiki-media.s3.us-central-
1.wasabisys.com/lpedia/Change_in_New_Hampshire_Libertarian_Party_-_Libertarian_Party_of_New_Hampshire.pdf — former Chair Jilletta Jarvis received a letter recognizing one side in an internal split without any knowledge or approval of the LNC [see Exhibit 10]. The controversy was over how this situation came to be. The timeline was documented by LPNH [https://web.archive.org/web/20241016033008/https://lpnh.org/coup/] By the time the Dixon Committee was formed, there was only one LPNH, Jarvis and allies had disbanded, and this was a post-mortem of that controversy.
10 https://lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LNC-Special-Meeting_2022-09-11_FINAL.pdf — not that it ultimately matters since there is no requirement to have a committee and such would be a voluntary measure by the LNC.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 8
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
Committee. There were no “investigatory committees” formed by the LNC. It simply is not required.
The Appeal provides no proof of the existence of a “2021 resolution on affiliate discipline.” [Appeal ¶40] There isn’t any. There was a 2021 motion [not resolution—they are different, see RONR (12th ed.) 10:13] for the eventual Dixon investigatory committee to make recommendations and “set forth a model of investigating internal matters.” [Appeal ¶64] LPNH seems to be interpreting this as their methodology being the “model” to be “set forth.” Even if one were to take their methodology as the model, there was no motion adopting this “model” as a binding rule for the LNC. Thus, there is no “procedural failure,” i.e., there was no violation of adopted persistent Special Rule of Order. Committees have no binding power, and their recommendations are an expression of their opinion.
However, even granting any of those assertions for the sake of argument, I note this:
- The Dixon Committee set forth a recommendation that a valid cause for discipline was “Social media posts which unequivocally damage or pose a significant threat to damaging recruitment of candidates, number of donors and size of their donations, and especially serve to reduce votes for Libertarian candidates are cause for termination in the case of staff, removal from the LNC for members, and/or censure, repudiation or other disciplinary action(s).”
The LPNH cannot argue this does not apply to affiliates since it is using this report as some kind of model standards. The more appropriate response is that the LNC never officially adopted this recommendation, but that would undercut its argument.
- The LPNH admits in its Appeal [¶66] that the “model” was to govern “the LNC’s intervention into the internal disputes of affiliate.” This was not an “internal dispute of an affiliate.” It was severing of the relationship of an affiliate with the national Party.
FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF RONR
LPNH cites to RONR (12th ed.) 63:7 [Appeal ¶46] but that is wholly inapplicable as it deals with discipline of members not organizations. Since we can only analogize here, even in the case of an officer, RONR (12th ed) 62:16 recognizes that a mere vote can suffice depending upon the description of the terms of office or the wording of the Bylaws. The Bylaws lay out the procedure for disaffiliation, a specification of the nature of the case and a 3/4 vote of the entire LNC, and as disaffiliation is not removal of an officer, there is no minority argument to be had that a trial is required by the description of the terms of office. The Bylaws are superior to the parliamentary authority [RONR (12th ed.) §2].
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 9
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
MISUSE OF THE DECISION IN PHILLIES V. LNC AND “FOR CAUSE”
Past decisions of the JC are not binding. They are persuasive, like rulings by the Chair [RONR (12th ed. 23:10]. But in this matter, LPNH’s own point condemns it. The Phillies JC, in the context of removal of an officer, stated that:
Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from office by the society’s assembly . . . for cause—that is, neglect of duty in office or misconduct . . . . RONR (12th ed.) 62:16.
[A] member may be charged with “conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work,” or the like, and an officer may be charged with misconduct of the type just mentioned or with “misconduct in office,” “neglect of duty in office,” or “conduct that renders him [or “her”] unfit for office.” RONR (12th ed.) 63:24.
None of this helps LPNH. In addition the Trump endorsement (an unquestionable disaffiliable offense) the LNC did state in its disaffiliation motion that “they have crudely and repeatedly undermined our own
candidates, and have espoused numerous anti-libertarian positions on a National level” which is clearly a charge in the nature of “conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.”
As far as the case law cited by the LPNH, this is not a legal proceeding. It is an internal tribunal under its own rules, but I would note, without rendering a legal opinion as a non-attorney, by the naked words of Appeal ¶¶50-53, those cases deal with members (affiliates are not members of the Party) and directors and none of the cases were from D.C. (nor Maryland or Virginia which are highly persuasive in D.C.) This is relevant as the LNC is a D.C. non-profit corporation.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 10
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
CONCLUSION
I do not assert that I have addressed each of the points raised, but despite the length of this Amicus, I have strived to limit my input to where I believed I could be most helpful. The Judicial Committee should affirm the LNC’s decision without hesitation. Tolerating this conduct is suicide for any serious political party.
Caryn Ann Harlos
Life Member
Titles, Titles
PS: I stand in substantial agreement with the Amicus filed by Jake Leonard except for one objectively inaccurate factual assertion: there was no disaffiliation of the Virginia affiliate. Former LPVA board members dissolved the non-profit corporation, but that had no effect on the legal existence of the political assembly. The treasurer remained and along with LPVA members held a special convention and elected new leadership. At no point was the LPVA unrecognized by the LNC. However, this further disproves LPNH’s argument since that LPVA situation was definitely an “internal dispute of an affiliate” and no investigatory committee was formed.
LPNH v. LNC in re: Disaffiliation for Cause 11
Amicus of Caryn Ann Harlos dated July 4, 2026
Be First to Comment