We quote Amanda Griffith’s post on the LNC’s public list:
Gentlemen,
This is my first available time to contact those who are to be contacted, and as such I am doing so now.
After deliberation in executive session, the Judicial Committee rose at 9:57PM on August 17, 2026 (last night) to consider the question in the matter of the disaffiliation of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. The vote was conducted as a roll call vote.
Shall the National Committee’s revocation of affiliate party status of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire be affirmed, or shall the Judicial Committee order reinstatement of the affiliate party?
The vote was 7-0-0 to affirm the decision of the LNC.
There are no fewer than 4 written opinions of which I am aware that are in progress. All written opinions are due to be published no later than Sept 11, 2026.
There is additionally a document that is being finalized to explain the process of the appointments to the Judicial Committee, including a full history of the bylaws which enabled that process. It is not a ruling or decision, as a committee is not able to decide on its own legitimacy. The only body which can make such a determination is the appointing body, which would be a national convention body.
Thank you,
Ken Moellman
Chair, Judicial Committee
Seebeck:
You said, “It is my intention on the Convention Oversight Committee to not have that schedule absurdity repeat itself.”
What are your ideas and what will you share with the other members of the Convention Oversight Committee to have better conducted conventions. Will you create an essay that you will share with us as to what we can expect from you and the Convention Oversight Committee as it relates to the Party convention being held in 2028?
There is another body that can decide on the legitimacy of the JC. The courts.
lol.
Yeah, that ain’t happening.
And even if LPNH could come up with $20k-30k, or more, to sue JC/LNC in court, the JC/LNC would prevail. Again.
Your analysis on this case has proven to be wrong from the start, the mud settled, and the JC upheld the LNC enforcing its own rules.
“For cause” simply means the reason for disaffiliation must be stated and it means nothing more than that, regardless of your rhetoric.
LPNH must now cease using the name “Libertarian Party” and the LNC must be prepared to enforce its trademark in NH.
It would be far more, and LNC in good shape to recover their own fees.
They have already hired an attorney.
If the JC doesn’t issue a ruling, which it can’t do if not validly constituted, the disaffiliation stands. It’s a moot point. Based on that, I would expect the courts to dismiss any claims by the LPNH against the legitimacy of the JC for lack of standing, since they wouldn’t gain anything from the courts ruling the JC invalid.
Even supposing the courts would be willing to hear a case about internal organizational disputes in the first place. It would be outside the jurisdiction of a trademark court if it ended up going that route.
Courts only decide such things when a lawsuit is filed. Is there pending litigation that I’m not aware of?
They keep threatening. If they do, I hope they get hit with massive fees when the LNC wins. Which it will
Since this is the topic du jour, and it was asked in multiple amici on the NH matter, I wrote an personal opinion on this with deeper research than what I had published before. It is written as a personal opinion, as a body cannot decide on its own legitimacy. To re-emphasize, this is NOT a work product of the JC. It is my own work based on my own research, and has no bearing on my upcoming opinion on the matter of LPNH.
Long story short:
* The unfilled seats are vacant at the close of the convention.
* The delegates intentionally created language to fill vacancies of the JC when there are fewer than 5 members in article 8.1, at the convention in 2010, and there’s evidence in the bylaws committee report and the convention minutes of this.
* Article 13 is a special grant in our bylaws to allow email balloting (RONR otherwise explicitly disallows it), which doesn’t require a quorum and provides the mechanism to act without quorum. (As compared to Article 12 for electronic meetings)
The JC did what we were supposed to do. Further, if we were stuck with only 2 members for some reason, it would simply immobilize the JC while there are default judgment clauses in the bylaws that would find for a party automatically in every case except removal of a presidential candidate.
Those interested can read the much longer version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-sSFNpOJFLwSNMJ42-7Mhk2rZSWsJbONglZ7W9Gzyrk/edit?tab=t.0
Ken,
Is this what we want? Do we want two people to select the judicial committee or do we want the selection made by delegates at a Party convention? This goes beyond and is bigger that disaffiliating LPNH (I support the LPNH losing their affiliation for what they have done. They are guilty and have produced many harms.) As I have posted elsewhere conventions should be operated in such a way that all that needs to be done is done. The last three conventions sadly this has not been the case. We know what happened two years ago when we dispensed with a roll call of the states, the first time in Party history, our presidential candidate gave his acceptance speech in the middle of the night at around 1:00 A.M. when most who had been watching C-SPAN were probably asleep, our vice-presidential candidate [sic] did not get a chance to speak to the delegates and those watching C-SPAN, the convention adjourned Sunday after 1:00 A.M. . .
We know what happened at this years convention. Rather than go to through the parade of horribles that occurred I repeat conventions should be operated in such a way that all that needs to be done is done. If we cannot do that we as a Party have failed.
The convention was planned poorly not leaving enough time for business to be completed and for the delegates to elect a full JC.
That’s Pat Ford’s fault, not Ken and Aven’s fault.
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you this should have been done by the delegates, but it wasn’t, and that put Ken and Avens in a tough spot.
They filled the JC will Libertarians who are all well respected and served on the LNC in the past as Chair or VC and/or state affiliate chairs.
Pat Ford rodent copulated the schedule and betrayed every delegate.
It’s also Chadderdon and Martin’s fault, for wasting everyone’s time with a bunch of dilatory stuff. Even if we got an extra hour a day from being free from Pat Ford’s nonsense, it still wouldn’t be enough with the two of them doing what they were doing. Even two hours a day might not, especially if we didn’t have Monday.
It is my intention on the Convention Oversight Committee to not have that schedule absurdity repeat itself.
The convention chair, the convention parliamentarian and others ruined any opportunity for meaningful business with daily hours long delays for “waiting”. More than 5 hours, when you add it up.
Once the convention starts, the convention business become the responsibility of the convention chair.
Notice that the convention did NOT vote to return this person to the LNC. Instead, they had to be appointed back on since the delays didn’t allow for the at large races to finish like the JC elections.
There are many things I want. I’ve proposed bylaws changes, worked on multiple committees, etc. I’ve tried to push for what I want. I rarely get it. That’s the thing about being in an organization – it’s not just me.
Speaking of conventions, I was just speaking with Daniel Hayes again tonight, reminiscing about the 2018 and 2020 Convention Oversight Committee experience. IMO, and with no offense meant toward anyone, those COCs have not been matched since. If the stupid pandemic hadn’t happened, Austin 2020 was going to be the most successful convention the party ever had.
But my document has a heavy focus on the historical account of “how we got here” on a number of items. And learning from history, and not repeating mistakes, is the only way the organization itself moves forward.
I will say, though, that we ended up with a wonderful JC. It’s diverse, experienced, and independent. On last check, at least 4 opinions were being written on this case because everyone has something to say. There are no “yes men” here. Anyone who says different has never worked with these people.
And there’s a certain irony in that. The people maddest about the situation are from a caucus that often condemns democracy. And I, as someone who generally favors democracy (with limits) finding myself on a fully functional committee in the LP built through appointments, because Avens and I built honest criteria first and applied them properly.
Obviously, the correct decision.
Anyone with a brain, and who read the bylaws, could see LPNH’s arguments were baseless and absurd, as confirmed by the JC’s unanimous decision.
Jeremy Kauffman has now been kicked out of FSP and LP, but he will tell you the problem is not him, but everyone else associated with FSP and LP.
Cry harder, Jeremy.
Yes obviously the correct decision. I’m eager to read the decisions.
I am as well. And the document being prepared on the appointment of the JC.
Looking forward to hearing your take on the written decisions.