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.