The arguments presented in this amicus are beyond silly. I know he is a lawyer and all, but he’s wrong. Not all lawyers have common sense, apparently.
The LPNH was disaffiliated based on the fact, Kinsella, that they didn’t follow the affiliate agreement as outlined in Article 5 of the bylaws.
The LPNH has conceded they violated the bylaws by endorsing Trump. That fact is not in dispute.
That is all the “cause” and all the “sufficient specificity” the LNC needed to move forward with a vote to disaffiliate. The particulars are not in dispute, as you contend.
I will remind you, this isn’t a court of law where one must follow the “rules of civil procedure”, it’s a private organization enforcing its own rules.
There is no requirement or expectation of an investigation, hearing, report, committee, etc. etc.
Also…
The LNC has trademarked the name “Libertarian Party” and they have every right to enforce that trademark to protect the integrity of the Libertarian Party, USA and its state LP affiliates. In our current climate, that means using the state apparatus to protect property rights. That’s not “not libertarian” or “contrary to LP principles”. In a future libertarian society the state will not exist, but we’re not there yet.
If the JC will not allow the LNC to disaffiliate a state affiliate for explicitly violating the bylaws, when even the state affiliate has admitted they did so, and for years made statements that they don’t care about the ramifications of that decision, then what’s the point of having bylaws? If that’s the case, we might as well disband the Libertarian Party, USA and return everyone’s dues.
Kyle Markley
August 6, 2026
“Without particulars (who, when, what specific acts, which bylaw provisions were violated), the “cause” is impossible for the affiliate to answer and defend against and for the JC to review meaningfully. Thus, the specification requirement is not ornamental—it defines the charge or basis for the disaffiliation.”
But the bylaws literally, on their face, *only* require the “nature” of the cause to be specified — not all the particulars: “A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.”
They don’t call for a specification of the cause. The only call for the specification of the *nature* of the cause. That word matters.
“The motion did not specify how LPNH “publicly endorsed President Trump during the election”, who stated this, when this was done, what language was used, or what publication or means was used. The language in the motion is vague and nonspecific. ”
The bylaws don’t require the motion to specify those extra things. The JC is the appropriate venue for those. LPNH could argue “we didn’t endorse Trump, LNC got the facts wrong” in its appeal, and LNC could argue “yes you did and here are the particulars”, and the JC could decide the question of fact. That seems very natural and straightforward.
The arguments presented in this amicus are beyond silly. I know he is a lawyer and all, but he’s wrong. Not all lawyers have common sense, apparently.
The LPNH was disaffiliated based on the fact, Kinsella, that they didn’t follow the affiliate agreement as outlined in Article 5 of the bylaws.
The LPNH has conceded they violated the bylaws by endorsing Trump. That fact is not in dispute.
That is all the “cause” and all the “sufficient specificity” the LNC needed to move forward with a vote to disaffiliate. The particulars are not in dispute, as you contend.
I will remind you, this isn’t a court of law where one must follow the “rules of civil procedure”, it’s a private organization enforcing its own rules.
There is no requirement or expectation of an investigation, hearing, report, committee, etc. etc.
Also…
The LNC has trademarked the name “Libertarian Party” and they have every right to enforce that trademark to protect the integrity of the Libertarian Party, USA and its state LP affiliates. In our current climate, that means using the state apparatus to protect property rights. That’s not “not libertarian” or “contrary to LP principles”. In a future libertarian society the state will not exist, but we’re not there yet.
If the JC will not allow the LNC to disaffiliate a state affiliate for explicitly violating the bylaws, when even the state affiliate has admitted they did so, and for years made statements that they don’t care about the ramifications of that decision, then what’s the point of having bylaws? If that’s the case, we might as well disband the Libertarian Party, USA and return everyone’s dues.
“Without particulars (who, when, what specific acts, which bylaw provisions were violated), the “cause” is impossible for the affiliate to answer and defend against and for the JC to review meaningfully. Thus, the specification requirement is not ornamental—it defines the charge or basis for the disaffiliation.”
But the bylaws literally, on their face, *only* require the “nature” of the cause to be specified — not all the particulars: “A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause must specify the nature of the cause for revocation.”
They don’t call for a specification of the cause. The only call for the specification of the *nature* of the cause. That word matters.
“The motion did not specify how LPNH “publicly endorsed President Trump during the election”, who stated this, when this was done, what language was used, or what publication or means was used. The language in the motion is vague and nonspecific. ”
The bylaws don’t require the motion to specify those extra things. The JC is the appropriate venue for those. LPNH could argue “we didn’t endorse Trump, LNC got the facts wrong” in its appeal, and LNC could argue “yes you did and here are the particulars”, and the JC could decide the question of fact. That seems very natural and straightforward.