NH Libertarian Party Chairwoman Unilaterally Dissolves and Replaces Executive Committee, Bylaws

Concerned about the growing influence of the right libertarian Mises Caucus, New Hampshire Libertarian Party chairwoman Jilletta Jarvis yesterday took the unusual step of dissolving the state party’s duly elected executive committee and replacing it with members of her choosing.  She also threw out the existing party bylaws, drafted new bylaws, changed the password on social media accounts, and relocated party assets.

She posted the rationale for her moves on the New Hampshire Party website:

During the last two months I have watched a hostile take-over happen to an organization that was fighting for the equality and freedom of every individual in this state. An organization that wanted to see all people treated with respect, to have the liberty to choose freedom.  I believed that with these same goals we could learn to work together.

I confess that I was wrong.  I have watched secret plots occurring and been shushed about it and advised that I was simply misunderstanding, and that non-supportive behavior on my part would not be tolerated. Meanwhile, these same individuals have made public statements about their intention to rid my organization of those who had fought to build it over all these years in this state.  Their strategy of so-called “bold messaging” is not designed to promote freedom and educate people on how to peacefully take back the freedoms guaranteed to them in the Constitution.  Their strategy is, frankly, designed to discredit the Libertarian Party in the state and in our nation.

There is a right way to be bold.  There is a right way to make demands for freedom.  There is a right way to move people to want to fight for their rights.  But, as humans, we are fallible and sometimes we don’t learn the lessons of history – even our own immediate history. January 6th showed us what can happen when people are riled up into a frenzy and given little direction.  For the last two months, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has been using this strategy, the strategy of riling up mobs to frenzy and giving them no direction.  These new members have stated their intention was to take us over and then move on to do the same thing in the Republican Party.  While the Republican Party is my opposition, I am not willing to have this Party used to support such a goal.  I am not willing to allow this Party to be turned into a force that takes apart the hard work of thousands of individuals across this country; the candidates who had to work three times as hard as their opponents just to get on the ballot, let alone win their races. These individuals deserve our respect and support, not angry mobs.

When I was elected as Chair, I was hopeful for the opportunity to grow and diversify of the Party, to build a strong core of politically motivated individuals ready to write policy proposals, testify against bills that stole the freedom of the individuals of New Hampshire, and stand up for individual rights and equality.  I was enthused that there was a desire for bold messaging to promote these ideals and large committees of people ready to stand up for the individual.

While my desire for these things has not lessened, neither has the division in the Party between those who have those same goals and those who have an alternate agenda.  We have always had diverse opinions in the LPNH.  This is not new, but this is the first year that the distinction between them was so rigid that individuals cannot see through them to work towards a common goal.

There are now two groups in the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire where there used to be one.  One group that is the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and another that wants to work towards their vision of Liberty in a more “bold,” more bellicose manner.  It is not up to me to say which of these strategies is correct, but it is my responsibility to lead my Party towards the success of the goals of both the State and National Libertarian Party.

These two internal groups refuse to work together and so, if either is to succeed, it is time to separate.  Those members who wish to push for the open umbrella of the State and National Platform by seeking to promote Libertarian Candidates and fight for individual rights and equality on the state stage are invited to stay with me in the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.  Those who wish to push for goals specific to a more independent branch of libertarianism through bold social messaging are welcome to stay with the other members of the previous Executive Committee.  Fighting for the rights of all individuals means fighting for your right to represent yourselves, and this is your opportunity.  Start your own Party, if you wish, free from the perceived limitations of the Libertarian Party.  This is your time, your best chance to seize on this opportunity.  You have an amazing capacity to grow your numbers without being burdened by the constant struggle of being affiliated with a Party that does not agree with your goals or methods.

To this end, we have established a new interim set of Bylaws and Platform and instituted a new Executive Committee to work with me in the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.  To those who wish to rejoin us, previous membership payments will be honored, however there is a requirement to sign a new oath and review the interim Bylaws and Platform and affirm you can agree to abide by them.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire will still be the Nationally recognized Libertarian Party as I was the only unanimously elected official at our last election.  As evidence, I am including a copy of a letter from the Chair of the National Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party attesting to this fact.

Out of respect for all of those who have been angered, threatened, or insulted by the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, there will be no new Social Media posts from us for the rest of this weekend.

I thank you for your time and for all of you who wish to fight for freedom in our lifetime.

New Oath of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire:

“I will not advocate or endorse the initiation of force as a means to achieve political or social goals.  I will advocate for the freedom from oppression and coercion for all New Hampshire residents and affirm that as Libertarians we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.”

In response, member Justin O’Donnell and 36 signatories filed a formal complaint with the National Party. It reads:

I’m writing to request a formal condemnation of the LNC regarding the actions of Jilletta Jarvis on the 12th of June, 2021, as well as to request formal assistance of the LNC in affirming the rights of the membership of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.

Mrs. Jarvis posted in her capacity as chair of LPNH, a lengthy blog post on the Party Website detailing her actions, including unilaterally dismissing the duly elected Executive Committee that was elected by membership in Convention, as well as disposing of the party’s bylaws by unilateral decree, without the support of a convention vote by party membership.

She further announced the formation of a new party, with an interim Executive committee by her appointment, and a new set of bylaws, effective immediately, without a vote of convention delegates or party members.

The blog post is viewable on the official Party Website at
https://lpnh.org/2021/06/12/change-in-new-hampshire-libertarian-party/.

As a Lifetime Member of both The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, and The National Libertarian Party, I believe members rights were violated, as the decisions of the convention were not respected and the Chair acted unilaterally, beyond the scope of her authority, to disenfranchise membership and defraud the Members of the party by using the privilege of her elected position to change passwords of social media accounts and lock elected members of the EC out from the resources the Convention voted to entrust them with.

Furthermore, the chair acted by using a letter from the national Chair, Joe Bishop-Henchman, Jesseas justifications for her actions. This letter was dated the 7th of June, and there was no communication of it’s receipt or intended purpose to the members of the party between its writing and use as justification for the fraudulent take over of the party resources by Mrs. Jarvis. Furthermore, the physical assets of LPNH were removed from the party’s storage unit by members of the “new” committee, prior to the announcement, and Brian Shields posted on facebook that the theft of these party assets was done with the blessing and support of Mr. Bishop-Henchman. These details point to collusion with the National Chair and Mrs. Jarvis, in planning and condoning these actions. I would also request that the Membership of the LNC formally Censure Mr. Bishop-Henchman for overstepping his authority, and abusing his position to influence the internal matters of a state affiliate based on caucus grounds and affiliations.

Myself and other members of the Libertarian party of New Hampshire are hopeful that The Libertarian National Committee will act accordingly, and reaffirm that the Executive Committee duly elected by delegates at convention as the rightful governing body of The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, alternatively, we will investigate the possibility of legal action concerning the fraud and disenfranchisement of membership should the LNC not reaffirm our affiliation.

Sincerely,

Justin O’Donnell, Lifetime Member LP, LPNH

Joined in Signing, Additional Members of The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.
Nolan Pelletier, Vice Chair, LPNH
Sean Brennan, Treasurer LPNH
Sean Dempsey, At Large, LPNH
Stephen Nass, At Large, LPNH
Jesse Garland
Derek Proulx
Derek Vebruge
Steve Zemanek
Jeffrey Creem
Rosa Moura
Karlyn Borysenko
William Barger
Derek Verbrugge – Theft from libertarians shows a fundamental failure to understand the principles of liberty.
Tabitha Bogardus
Ryan Bloodworth
Alex Desmarais
Gabrielle Desmarais
Erik Sawyer
Conrad Nelson
Patrick Binder
Mari Fontaine
Mickey Mullin
Viviana Figueroa
Robert Lombardo, previous Treasurer, LPNH
Chris Cioffi
Victoria Saucier, Lifetime Member LP, Lifetime LPNH, Bylaws Chair, Platform Chair, JC LPNH
Kayla Hornbrook
Seth Hall
Dr. Joshua Olitzky
John Elliott
Dr. Benjamin C. Richards, NHLP Judicial Committee
Stephen Persico
Jessica Pelletier
Rod Dukelow
Brandon Brush

The Libertarian National Committee reportedly meets Tuesday and will most certainly address the changes in New Hampshire. LNC Region 2 Representative Steven Nekhaila has already expressed concern in a message to other LNC members:

This issue ought to have been brought up to the LNC and not at the unilateral discretion of the Chair. What evidence is available, from reading the LPNH text, that the EC of the LPNH are Republican operatives. Not being happy with messaging is not grounds for expelling an EC, and what grounds that there were Republican operatives in both Rules and Bylaws?

This situation raises many questions that must be addressed and investigated, appropriate actions will be taken pending the findings of an investigation.

This is an extremely disturbing development and I want answers.

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the link.

64 thoughts on “NH Libertarian Party Chairwoman Unilaterally Dissolves and Replaces Executive Committee, Bylaws

  1. Thomas L Knapp

    Ms. Jarvis seems to indicate in an interview with some LNC members (I believe the public-facing video of the interview has been removed from YouTube; at least LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos indicated she would be removing it) that Mr. Bishop-Henchman was aware of her plans when he issued the letter.

    If so, that’s not a good thing.

    But it could instead be just a standard letter of the type that some state chairs need when interfacing with state election officials to periodically establish state party status/organization, and issued for that purpose.

    I’ll be interested in knowing which is the case.

    My sympathies tend to fall with Ms. Jarvis’s reasons for doing what she did, but it seems not very According to Hoyle.

    As for LNC intervention, the only options they have with respect to LPNH are to maintain or end the affiliation. They have zero authority to settle internal state party disputes. They could, of course, censure Mr. Bishop-Henchman if he acted wrongly.

  2. fred stein

    I just read the platform of the Mises caucus……………Please educate me why this group is bad. Their platform looks good.

  3. Thomas L Knapp

    I agree, they’ve got a great platform.

    The public statements of their principals, and public statements endorsed and defended by those principals, tend to conflict with their own platform.

    Also, they are not a Libertarian Party caucus. That self-description is fraudulent. They’re an entryist PAC formed by “Ron Paul Republicans” and they have made no secret of their intention to “take over” the Libertarian Party. A caucus is an internal group, not an external hijacking attempt.

  4. anonymous

    she should be expelled from the party. She’s a dictator, something I thought the LP was against.

    The LNC chair, if proven he was in on this needs to be expelled too.

  5. Thomas L Knapp

    There is no mechanism for expelling members from the national party. The bylaws are unequivocal: If you’ve signed the pledge, you’re a member, full stop.

    As for Jarvis being a dictatorship, there’s an express hook in the LPNH bylaws which arguably allowed her to do what she did. Section IV, F, (2): “The Chair shall have the power to appoint persons to leadership roles within the State Party, subject to the confirmation of the Executive Committee, and may make immediate temporary appointments without confirmation if required to carry out tasks that require urgency.”

  6. Rob

    That’s not what she did. She

    1. Cancelled and replaced the party bylaws giving herself a 4 year term instead of 1, and new powers ,

    2. Cancelled and replaced all party committees e.g. Exec com, justice (judicial), communications, membership, etc,

    3. Cancelled every regular party membership (!) subject to being reinstated only if and when the member signs a new oath she invented,

    4. Seized control of website, fb and Twitter accounts,

    5. Redirected the donation page,

    6. Emptied the party storage locker,

    7. Used a fraudulent pretext – various false claims like that there were plans to purge numerous members, when in fact there was the expulsion of just one member – ironically for doxing Jilletta – which hadn’t happened yet til the next day…to get a letter from the national chair stating she is the chair of the only nationally recognized affiliate, which he wrote unilaterally…which she used to file organization paperwork with the SOS.

    If that’s not a dictator, what is?

  7. Thomas L Knapp

    “1. Cancelled and replaced the party bylaws giving herself a 4 year term instead of 1, and new powers ,”

    Incorrect. Those are interim bylaws subject to ratification by a convention.

    “2. Cancelled and replaced all party committees e.g. Exec com, justice (judicial), communications, membership, etc,”

    Which, according to previously existing bylaws IV(F)(2), she had authority to do.

    “3. Cancelled every regular party membership (!) subject to being reinstated only if and when the member signs a new oath she invented,”

    Interesting claim.

    “4. Seized control of website, fb and Twitter accounts,”

    “5. Redirected the donation page,

    “6. Emptied the party storage locker”

    How does one “seize control” of things one already had control of? All of those things ultimately came under her purview as chair.

    “7. Used a fraudulent pretext – various false claims like that there were plans to purge numerous members, when in fact there was the expulsion of just one member – ironically for doxing Jilletta – which hadn’t happened yet til the next day…to get a letter from the national chair stating she is the chair of the only nationally recognized affiliate, which he wrote unilaterally…which she used to file organization paperwork with the SOS.”

    Would that be the paperwork that the previous committee DIDN’T file with the SOS, thus making LPNH technically a non-existent organization?

    “If that’s not a dictator, what is?”

    The dictionary is your friend.

  8. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Below is letter that was forwarded to the LNC by former LP NH chair who was still advising the new Chair on what to do, as is custom up there. (Sent to LNC member Laura Ebke.) His view. More links in next thread. Lots of LNC debate on what to do here under last several threads. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2021/06/nh-libertarian-party-chairwoman-unilaterally-dissolves-and-replaces-executive-committee-bylaws/

    ________________________________________
    From Brian Shields:

    Ms Ebke,

    I have prepared a statement to the entire LNC regarding the recent LPNH activity.

    Hello everyone on the LNC,

    I wanted to share my perspective as to why I assisted Jilletta Jarvis safeguard the name and reputation of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.

    The LPNH Executive Committee has an advisory, non voting position called Prior Chair. It was meant to help with transitions and assist with institutional memory. As the most recent Chair, and as the person who helped set up the CiviCRM and email system with Andy Burns, I offered to be in the position to assist the new Mises EC members with their new roles and with the tech.

    I served with one member, Stephen Nass, on the LPSeacoast county-level affiliate EC, and met two others in operating that affiliate, and felt the Mises slander against them to be overblown.

    I was incorrect.

    My experience sitting on the EC chat and in the meetings was that Steven was acting as a “shadow chair” leader of the other three Mises members and organized votes. They consulted their actions with the NH Mises group chat, and occasionally accidentally posted the wrong comment in the wrong chat.

    They were clearly discussing LPNH business with non-board members, possibly non LPNH members, and taking advice, if not orders, from the group.

    LPNH’s Communications Committee operated outside of the EC’s direction. One time holding a vote to consider if they would abide by the EC’s direction. The vote was tied and asked how to proceed, where I politely reminded them their vote had no authority and the EC should consider wiping the board clear if they didn’t abide. They reluctantly did, and as a result, ignored Jilletta’s directions with future messaging, including a direction that ONLY the Communication Committee Chair and Jilletta have access to the Twitter account. They continued to ignore direction from the Chair, and there were not the votes on the EC to change the makeup of the committee.

    Jackie Perry was a target from the beginning. We had a Members Only Facebook Group, where every time she challenged a Mises-focused post, she was chastised for being unfriendly to new members and when a social justice focused post was published, their supporters were not given equal admonishment for being combative and unfriendly.

    They published new rules for the Group focused on selective enforcement and used them to remove her from the group.

    The next time Jackie stepped out of bounds, by publishing already public contact info in an effort to publicly pressure Jilletta to take action to rein in the Twitter account, they revoked her membership and announced they did so in the Members Only group she was already expelled from. She had no chance to defend her actions, nor was offered any. The party Secretary told Justin O’Donnell at the same time as messaging Jackie, and Justin blasted it over social media before she was even aware of what happened. This was a huge violation of membership rights.

    When I challenged the procedure, I was told by Stephen Nass to “Take it to the JC,” where they knew they had the votes to confirm any action.

    Prior to this, the only other LPNH member who was expelled openly advocated for the preemptive murder of police officers in self defense. The bar was set higher than using public information to publicly pressure a Chair into action. Jackie’s actions were within the bounds of the NAP, in my opinion.

    By this time I had resigned because as an advisor whose advice was constantly ignored, I felt my time on the EC had run its course. Every time I brought up anything contrary to their agenda I was talked down and gaslighted.

    In the past week or so I became aware that Jilletta was the next target for removal, and Jackie’s expulsion was a test run for setting precedent. With Jilletta out of the way, their plan was to systematically expel non-Mises friendly members leading up to the convention in January so they are unchallenged when they vote their Mises friendly delegates to the LNC convention to vote all of you out so they can repeat LPNH’s media strategy with LPNational’s social media.

    In the past weeks, LPNH’s communications unapologetically advocated fraud, torture and murder of political officials, invoked images of children working in coal mines, comparisons of vaccine passports to the Holocaust, and implied threats of violence.

    Every time these were called to attention, we were told they were “satire” and “a joke” and that “bold messaging wins.” Fox News, NPR, and The Boston Globe disagreed.

    In the old bylaws, section IV. F. Describes the Chair’s duties.


    1. The Chair shall be the chief executive officer of the State Party, holding the powers of administration pertaining to the ordinary business affairs of the State Party and such other powers as may be delegated by the Board or General Court. The Chair shall serve as presiding officer for meetings of the Executive Committee, the Board, and the General Court.
    2. The Chair shall have the power to appoint persons to leadership roles within the State Party, subject to the confirmation of the Executive Committee, and may make immediate temporary appointments without confirmation if required to carry out tasks that require urgency.

    By using a salt-the-earth offensive Twitter strategy, the “ordinary business affairs of the State Party” were not able to function. The Communications Committee was ruining the reputation of the Libertarian Party and LPNH, making finding and fielding candidates potentially impossible.

    By assigning provisional executive committee members, who will be confirmed or elected at the next convention as she stated in her statement to membership, to perform tasks that required urgency, Jilletta operated within the authority vested in her by unanimously electing her into the Chair position. These are immediate temporary appointments, which she has the full authority to do without confirmation.

    This is why I assisted Jilletta. I know our actions are controversial and if we didn’t, dozens of LPNH members and lifetime members who put years of hard work into this party would have their rights taken away from them, by bad actors with ill intent taking orders from outside of the membership with the plan to disrupt the entire national party. Candidates and volunteers would not step forward, and our party would cease to function.

    Assisting Jilletta in this action was the only way I knew to preserve member rights and the integrity of the Libertarian Party. I know my actions today put my future and reputation with the party at risk, and I will sleep soundly knowing I did everything in my power to retain the image and electability of LPNH and the LNC.

    Thank you for hearing my side of this.

    Sincerely,
    Brian Shields
    LPNH Chair
    2019-2020

  9. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    OK. Here’s LNC discussion link. (what happened to edit feature?)
    https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/g/lnc-business

    And here’s the two videos Harlos made interviewing the two sides.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vhvzYg–E2-ZZBW766t30mITJ10eDJej/view?usp=sharing

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fd6WA0jFdm_hzOeAEi41ijKYqMQdP6TC/view?usp=sharing

    Ms. Harlos is obviously heavily on side of the “HEISE Caucus” as I now call them. So be aware when you are watching it. I call it “HEISE Caucus” because he is there leader for life and controls MANY shots and he and they won’t give up blood and soil rhetoric. Ludwig von Mises, who fled the nazis, would not be happy.

    HEISE Caucus took main slots of LP NH board and then let bigot Jeremy Kauffman run their LP NH communications. Kauffman and others also liked the idea oved of using LP to take over NH GOP! PLus stuff Brian Shields mentioned above.

  10. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    In conversations with others it has occurred to some that one of their motivating themes for taking over the LP among their Ron Paul recruit is REVENGE!! The evil LP wouldn’t let Ron Paul speak at the NOLA convention 2018. An organizer told me it was because he had recently written that the USA needed a NEW 3rd party and that pissed him/them off. Anyway Paul made a joke later about his being “kicked out” of the party. The HEISE Caucus has made hay of that incident, no doubt. Among their other unsavory motivations having to do with power and control of the libertarian message.

    Older Ron Paulites still might want revenge for LP rejecting their Chair candidate at 1989 national LP convention – after which, doubtless led by Rothbard, they quit the party. I have all the publications of the time on that.

    The main “resistance” spread the dirt – though not as much evidence as the more fastidious would like to see – are the Fakerterians and the Libertarian Party Cathedral Caucus on Facebook. LNC Business Discuss also has some rational discussions.

  11. Thomas L Knapp

    Carol,

    You bring up an interesting point.

    The main Mooses Cuck Us figures came over from “the Ron Paul movement.”

    I’ve opined recently that the reason they may have done so is that the geriatric element of that movement within the GOP isn’t ready to move on and hand the reins over to the youngsters, so the youngsters decided to invade the LP where maybe they’d have some upward mobility.

  12. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Good point. There also are a lot of Tom Woods fans and he doesn’t like GOP and vice versa.

    LNC just voted to let Woods speak at the convention. There is a petition to have them withdraw him, but it dramatically emphasizes some points while not mentioning more important ones. LIke his continued defense of use of the term “blood and soil.” It does have some links to criticism I haven’t read yet.

    I don’t like the bashing of the word “confederate” which is perfectly fine by itself for a means of networking independent and semi-independent entities, and secession itself. But do agree that Woods and a few others with an irrational attachment to the old confederacy aren’t doing the concepts any good.

    And of course there are the HOPPE people and their helicopters and you know some of them are in the HEISE Caucus. All people pretty much rejected even by the TRUMP Gop types and the pro-warriors who still call themselves Trumpsters.

  13. George Phillies

    Tom writes “As for LNC intervention, the only options they have with respect to LPNH are to maintain or end the affiliation. They have zero authority to settle internal state party disputes. They could, of course, censure Mr. Bishop-Henchman if he acted wrongly.”

    The LNC could also stop sending LPNH the list of national members, disallow any continued use of CRM under the LNC’s license, decline to allow the LPNH to join the revised UMP plan, or cease to send LPNH money for petitioning for candidates. Note that I do not know which of these the LNC is currently doing or has as an option to do. These are all steps short of disaffiliation. I did not say taht any of them are good ideas.

  14. George Phillies

    The Mises Caucus is formed of Ron Paul supporters. That’s enough to say they are not good people, given his newsletters.

  15. Thomas L Knapp

    Dr. Phillies,

    Thank you for your correction.

    The intended meaning of my statement that “the only options they have with respect to LPNH are to maintain or end the affiliation,” was that those are the options they have with respect to actually determining the affiliate’s internal governance.

    They can’t appoint its officers, amend or enforce its bylaws, etc. If they don’t like those officers/bylaws, or if they don’t know which officers/bylaws are the “legitimate” ones, their only legitimate recourse is to say “OK, we are ending the affiliation” (and, if they wish, coming back to choose one of the competing organizations as the affiliate).

    With Oregon, they tried to get around actually doing that. Instead of disaffiliating Oregon and then choosing an affiliate, each of which required a vote of the entire LNC, the executive committee tried to just pick the competing organization it preferred. That tactic was overturned by the Judicial Committee, although in a not very satisfactory or informationally sound manner.

  16. Richard Winger

    I am told that the Mises group actively tries to discourage Libertarian Party members from running for partisan public office because the Mises group wants Republicans to win partisan elections and feels Libertarians on the ballot injure Republican nominees.

  17. Jared

    What did JBH know, and when did he know it? If his letter was just some awkward pro forma document recognizing Jilletta Jarvis as legitimate chair of the existing New Hampshire affiliate, then why hasn’t he released a statement correcting her misinterpretation? He can’t say, “This is a state matter, and national shouldn’t get involved,” because (1) the national party must recognize convention delegates, and (2) the LNC chair is involved already whether he likes it or not. If JBH did take it upon himself to disaffiliate a state party and recognize an alternative organization in one fell swoop, unilaterally and without even notifying other LNC members, which is where the evidence points, then I can understand calls for his resignation. Harlos must be ready to hang him.

    I don’t like a lot of what the Mises Caucus says and does, but the claim that they’re a bunch of alt-right or Republican entryists seeking to discredit the party goes too far. Even if they were everything their fiercest critics believe them to be, this is not how the matter should’ve been handled, either by the LPNH chair or (as his letter seems to indicate) by the LNC chair.

  18. Thomas L Knapp

    “If his letter was just some awkward pro forma document recognizing Jilletta Jarvis as legitimate chair of the existing New Hampshire affiliate, then why hasn’t he released a statement correcting her misinterpretation?”

    What makes you think he’s even seen her “misinterpretation?” He was traveling when this broke. The LNC’s executive committee meets tomorrow night, at which point he will likely explain himself to them in a timely manner, not to you just because you stomped your foot and demanded it.

  19. Jared

    “I am told that the Mises group actively tries to discourage Libertarian Party members from running for partisan public office because the Mises group wants Republicans to win partisan elections and feels Libertarians on the ballot injure Republican nominees.”

    That is true, but certainly not any Republican nominee. They have in mind the Rand Paul/Thomas Massie types. I disagree with that strategy, except perhaps in extreme circumstances where the GOP candidate is absolutely solid and we wonder why they’d even bother to run on a major party ticket, but by itself it doesn’t prove a conspiracy to undermine the LP, especially in a state such as NH where there’s a fair share of non-Trumpy conservatarian Republicans. The early party tolerated hardcore Konkinite Agorists, principled nonvoters who opposed running candidates for elective office, but I find it a bit odd that people who claim to value bold, radical messaging have adopted an approach that sounds more like what moderate or right-leaning Prags might advocate. But given the general hard-right reconstructionist anarchist paleoconservative orientation of the Mises Institute, of which the Mises Caucus is basically an extension, it isn’t terribly shocking. Hoppe’s “libertarian” “anarchism” is instrumental, a rigorous social contractarianism to replace a centralized state with decentralized, exclusive, traditionalist or theonomist or neofeudal covenant communities. His vision is more Neo-Hobbesian than Misesian. I’ll take Ron Paul Constitutionalism over that Rothbardian-Rockwellian-Hoppean pseudo-anarchist crap.

  20. Jared

    Knapp: “What makes you think he’s even seen her ‘misinterpretation?'”

    I would hope the national chair isn’t the last LNC member to become aware that his own letter has excited a hornet’s nest and contributed to a state party affiliation crisis. Foot stomping has nothing to do with it. I hate to “go there,” but if on January 6 the president believed his words had been misconstrued to incite a riot at the Capitol, I wouldn’t have much sympathy for him if he didn’t issue a timely correction. “I was busy, and nobody told me,” isn’t a compelling excuse. I don’t mean to draw an equivalence, but I’m also not concern trolling here. This matter isn’t necessarily limited to NH. It could inspire similar actions from other state parties. If JBH wants to prevent the LP from splintering on his watch, then he should get out ahead of tomorrow’s LNC meeting and offer an unforced explanation. I don’t think it’s asking very much, given what’s currently happening to the LPNH.

  21. Thomas L Knapp

    “I would hope the national chair isn’t the last LNC member to become aware that his own letter has excited a hornet’s nest and contributed to a state party affiliation crisis.”

    And I would hope that your reading skills are better than to get that out of what I actually wrote.

    Ms. Jarvis’s claims regarding his knowledge are part of a series of two lengthy videos. Given that he was traveling and presumably had actual things that needed to be done and that couldn’t just await his convenience, there’s no particular reason to believe that he would or should immediately down and watch what amounts to more than a feature length movie that could await his convenience, since the only time when it would be smart for him to be making any statements on the matter is at the meeting tomorrow night.

    When you’ve got a bad situation, deciding to immediately start running your yap with “unforced explanations,” instead of taking time to look at that situation carefully while preparing to explain yourself at the the proper time and in the proper venue, is almost always a bad idea.

  22. Aiden

    I find it quite fascinating that one the key figures at this flair up is again Harlos, just like the shit that happened just before the last convention. My opinion last convention was that she needed to go, unfortunately the delegates didn’t see the problem… hopefully next time it will be more obvious.

  23. Thomas L Knapp

    To be honest, the only reason she’s a “key figure” is that she’s flouncing around trying to make it all about her.

    In fact, just now, she attacked another LNC member for mentioning, get this, THE YEAR 2016 without her “consent.”

  24. Rob

    Mr. Knapp:

    “Incorrect. Those are interim bylaws subject to ratification by a convention.”

    Section IV, F, (2): “The Chair shall have the power to appoint persons to leadership roles within the State Party, subject to the confirmation of the Executive Committee, and may make immediate temporary appointments without confirmation if required to carry out tasks that require urgency.”

    There is no mention of interim bylaws in that section. Please cite the section that empowers a chair to institute interim bylaws.

    You will also note that Section IV, F, (2) that the power to appoint people to positions of leadership is subject to confirmation of the executive committee. Instead she dismissed and allegedly replaced the executive committee along with the justice (judicial) committee and all other committees.

    When would the ratification convention take place? The bylaws she invented give her a term of 4 years, which was 1 year in the bylaws voted in by members in convention. Who would be allowed to vote at this convention? See https://lpnh.org/bylaws/ and click on “bylaws 2021”
    “II. Membership
    a. All Party Members must certify and attest to the Oath of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (Hereinafter referred to as the “LPNH Oath”): ”
    Note that Ms. Jarvis invented this oath and that this effectively strips the membership of any member who does not sign it (for instance because they believe the term bigotry is ill defined, or for any other reason), including life members.

    In her letter quoted above she says “To those who wish to rejoin us, previous membership payments will be honored, however there is a requirement to sign a new oath and review the interim Bylaws and Platform and affirm you can agree to abide by them.” What happens to members who don’t sign the new oath, either out of philosophical objection or not knowing about it or inaction? What empowers her to institute a new membership oath, strip everyone’s membership and insist they sign the new oath she invented to reclaim their rights as members?

    What was the emergency she is citing? According to her, second hand/allegedly, the entire executive committee and all other party committees “constructively resigned” by expelling a member who, ironically, doxed Ms. Jarvis. There was no appeal of the expulsion. She also claims they were planning to expel numerous other people, allegedly. No proof of this claim has been offered anywhere I have seen, and they have denied it.

    What recourse would party members have against a rogue chair, if she can dismiss all party committees and change bylaws at will? Imagine if you will a Mises Caucus chair abusing the previous bylaws in this manner.

    “How does one “seize control” of things one already had control of? All of those things ultimately came under her purview as chair.”

    They were not under her unilateral control. There were/are a communication committee, membership committee, perhaps an outreach committee, and so on. There were/are procedures for dissolving such committees or changing their membership. Instead, she unilaterally seized control of them and claims to have dissolved all party committees. Additionally, she claims to have instituted new bylaws, which is authorized nowhere in the section you cite, quadrupled her term, and effectively stripped all party memberships unless and until they sign an oath she invented.

    “Interesting claim.”

    It’s right there in the text of her supposed interim bylaws and the letter in the article above.

    “Would that be the paperwork that the previous committee DIDN’T file with the SOS, thus making LPNH technically a non-existent organization?”

    The first part is correct. The second is not. I will post a separate message with more detailed explanation of that.

    I said: “If that’s not a dictator, what is?”

    You said: “The dictionary is your friend.”

    My dictionary definition seems to fit her actions very well. In fact, is that not her picture, illustrating the term?

  25. Rob

    Posted in another forum. I’m copying it here because some of the same dubious or false claims are made above.

    (Y)ou claim that the majority of the party (Mises Caucus people) wanted to run zero candidates. Actually there was just some discussion of staying out of the way of one liberty Republican candidate. No vote was taken.

    Jilletta is acting like the mad queen from Alice in wonderland. And accusing others of purging everyone which is actually what she did. Not anyone else. Maybe to cripple LPNH for porcfest? There’s no way she or JBH are so dumb, to think this will hold up long term.

  26. Rob

    “Would that be the paperwork that the previous committee DIDN’T file with the SOS, thus making LPNH technically a non-existent organization?”

    Here is a letter from the past treasurer.

    Link to RSA 664: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/664/664-mrg.htm

    Political committees are governed under RSA 664.

    RSA 664 is clearly titled “POLITICAL EXPENDITURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS”. It is applicable to elections. It does NOT expressly govern whether an entire organization is legitimate or not. It governs campaign finance.

    RSA 652.11 indeed declares that to be considered a political party, you must have achieved automatic ballot access in the last election. HOWEVER, RSA 664.2.IV explicitly states that for the purposes of RSA 664, the definition of “”party” contained in RSA 652:11 shall not apply” immediately after declaring that “”Political party” or “party” means any political organization or number of persons which can nominate candidates in any manner prescribed by law and has done so for the current election.” This means that as an organization, if we nominate candidates for the current cycle using the petition process, we are a political party in terms of campaign finance requirements, and there is nothing to indicate this designation hinges on also having or being a “political committee”. In fact, it defines “political committee of a political party” (emphasis mine) immediately after defining “political party” in manner that clearly describes the LPNH.

    Registration and reporting requirements for political committees are only triggered if receipt or expenditure limits are met as described in the rest of RSA 664. But remember, this is for campaign finance. Receipts and expenditures are also clearly defined. And based on the definitions and what I just explained, the LPNH is a political party, not a political committee. We can establish and register a political committee, if we have receipts or expenditures that meet the definitions described; In other words, if we raise or spend money specifically for candidates campaigns (Note: Ballot access is not campaigning because you are not advocating for a candidate success or defeat, you are only getting them on the ballot.) A combined reading of RSA 664.3.I and RSA 664.6 indicates that we are not required to register a committee until we reached certain receipt/expenditure limits, though nothing prohibits us from doing so voluntarily like we did in 2019. Once the election cycle ends; unless there are still assets or liabilities with the committee, it simply dissolves. So the committee we registered in 2019 is no more.

    I was Treasurer during the 2019-2020 election cycle. I did not file any reports as described by RSA 664 because none of our receipts or expenditures met the requirements. We did not raise money on behalf of candidates and we did not donate to candidates. I am quite confident in this interpretation because, remember, we had a lawsuit regarding ballot access and a challenge to one of our candidates. If we were in any violation of the basic campaign finance requirements, it would have been easy low-hanging fruit for our opponents to pounce on. They did not. Because we are a political party, not a political committee, and the political committee we registered essential sat dormant.

    The current treasurer, Sean Brennan, has likewise not missed any campaign finance reporting requirements because there are yet to be any campaigns.

    There is, however, an area where LPNH has fallen short in terms of its organization, and that is registration as a business with the state of New Hampshire. We registered in 2019 through the state web site but our application was rejected. No explanation was provided by the Secretary of State. No guidance was given as to how to not be rejected. I do not recall exactly but I remember trying to register again and the site, I believe, stated that we already had an application submitted. When I turned over the treasure to the new treasurer in March of this year, I explained that this was still an outstanding issue that needed to be resolved. However, this was specifically a matter of concern for the treasure only because it was indirectly affecting our Paypal account. Nothing in our bylaws explicitly states that the treasurer is solely responsible for this registration. In fact, the original application in 2019 was filed by Brian Shields; the sitting CHAIR at the time. So I reject the idea that any continuance of this status is a failing of the treasurer, either past or present. Neither do I think it lies solely with the chair. I happen to think the entire party leadership ought to work together to bring it to resolution.

    Hope this helps.

  27. Rob

    In her letter quoted above she says “To those who wish to rejoin us, previous membership payments will be honored, however there is a requirement to sign a new oath and review the interim Bylaws and Platform and affirm you can agree to abide by them.” What happens to members who don’t sign the new oath, either out of philosophical objection or not knowing about it or inaction? What empowers her to institute a new membership oath, strip everyone’s membership and insist they sign the new oath she invented to reclaim their rights as members?

    I should add: supposed someone has no problem with the new oath, but does have a problem with something in the “new bylaws and platform” that she invented, as far as I see without any authority. Does this strip their rights as members to participate in the convention which would vote on ratifying the “temporary” bylaws and platform, if they don’t swear allegiance to them first?

  28. Rob

    Caryn Ann Harlos forwarded
    Sun, Jun 13, 3:58 PM (1 day ago)
    to lnc-business
    Request for Restoration of Access and meeting tonight at 6pm

    Sean Dempsey

    to Jilletta, Ugga, Stephen, seanbrennan150, chair,
    Dear Jilletta,

    As you are aware, you still hold the position of Chair of the LPNH. No resignation has been tendered as far as we are aware.

    The EC of the LPNH are meeting tonight for an emergency session at 6pm via Zoom and would kindly request you please attend. We recognize this is late notice, but the circumstances make it prudent. We will send the Zoom login url once you confirm receipt you can attend.

    The LPNH EC would also like to formally demand you immediate return access to the following LPNH assets to all current LPNH EC members:

    1) website access
    2) social media accounts for Facebook and Twitter
    3) Google drive for all party business/minutes/marketing assets etc

    Access to these accounts/assets were revoked on June 8 and we request they be restored immediately.

    We understand you have decided to start a separate group/organization—which is fine. But it is not appropriate for you to remove access to the EXISTING party’s digital assets or deny access to materials which pertain to the legacy/existing group. Please confirm receipt of this email as soon as possible.

    Cordially and respectfully,
    -Sean Dempsey, At Large LPNH
    Lifetime Member, LP National
    Lifetime Member, LPNH

  29. Rob

    Via LNC list

    Hello LNC Members,

    Nolan Pelletier Interim Chair of LPNH. Just wondering when you will return the website to the EC of LPNH? I would like to remind you, we are the elected officials of this state affiliate. Since I have not been contacted directly by you in any manner, I felt it was prudent to give you my personal info. Like many of you, I work full-time, but I will most certainly take time to talk to anyone who wishes to contact me, this is too important to wait. Since my LP email doesn’t work anymore, my personal # and email has been provided to you. I personally feel that you have aided in theft, and would appreciate in the very least an explanation. I have not even received this courtesy yet.
    Thanks
    Nolan Pelletier Interim Chair LPNH

    From Caryn Ann Harlos, Secretary LNC:

    As Secretary and an officer of this Party, I demand that the website access be given to the legitimate chair of the legitimate affiliate IMMEDIATELY. We do not own that website and we are jeopardizing the entire project by this. If we hijack the NH party website, why should any party stay with us, and I will be compelled to warn Colorado and ask them to consider withdrawing as I don’t trust the LNC not to do the same to us.

    Nolan Pelletier, Interim Chair LPNH:
    I would just like to add, since the website contains all of our membership info, we cannot conduct proper party business. Furthermore all these contacts are now in the hands of another entity. What is the protocol for this? National has aided in the theft of personal information, and then gave it to another organization. I am not a lawyer, but I feel the membership would have had to consent to this?

    Nolan Pelletier
    Interim Chair LPNH

    Caryn Ann Harlos:
    I agree with you and will do everything in my power to make NH whole. This is an outrageous breach by National. In my opinion. Once it was clear that Ms. Jarvis started a competing organization, at a minimum, the switch should have been flipped off. According to Ms. Jarvis, she told the LNC chair this a week ago at a minimum. However, I have not heard from the LNC Chair yet to hear his side. What I have heard via the few emails to the list makes zero sense.

    Nolan Pelletier:

    Thank you Caryn Ann for your quick response. I look forward to hearing from the rest of the LNC members. I implore National to move swiftly on this matter, since it seems the root of this issue might have been caused by someone at National. We would like our property returned, it never should have been taken in the first place. Unlike our other stolen digital assets, you have the power to return the website to us immediately.

    Caryn Ann Harlos:
    None of this should have happened, and while I understand and feel your anger, the LNC made no decision on this – I am still in fact finding mode to figure out how this all happened. But to my view, the legitimate authority of the LNC was bypassed and the duly elected officers of this party were kept in the dark. That is unacceptable.

  30. Rob

    Also forwarded to LNC

    June 13, 2021
    To the Executive and Judicial Committees of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire:

    My name is Dr. Joshua Olitzky, and I am a current, dues paying member and delegate of both the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) and the Libertarian Party. This is a formal request in accordance with the LPNH by-laws section VI.N.1-2 for the recall of Jiletta Jarvis from her position as chair of the LPNH.

    Section VI
    N. Officer Recall

    1. A petition to remove a member of the Executive Committee may be submitted to the Executive Committee and the Judicial Committee, provided that the petition:

    1. Contains a statement providing specific reasons why the Executive Committee member should be removed;

    2. Contains the signatures of at least 25% of the delegates who attended the most recent convention who certify that they agree with the statement; 3. Specifies at least one representative from the signatories who may be contacted by the Judicial Committee for additional information regarding the petition.

    2. If a recall petition is submitted, the Judicial Committee shall verify its authenticity, investigate the matter, and render a decision no later than 30 days after the verification of the petition. A 2/3 vote of all Judicial Committee members is required to remove an Executive Committee member.

    Jiletta has violated the LPNH by-laws and unilaterally taken control of party resources, including the website and social media channels; the party’s storage unit has been emptied; and she has declared new by-laws, a platform, and a membership oath, while attempting to remove all duly elected committee members from the LPNH, including the entire Executive and Judicial committees. There was no vote of the body on this matter, no discussion with any committee and no appeal to the judicial committee which is required to remove any officer of the party. I believe this is a willful and severe dereliction of duty.

    According to a public statement made by the chair of the national Libertarian Party, Jiletta has also made false statements, with a claim that all current officers “constructively resigned”, along with the false claim that the goals of the current LPNH Executive Committee were to procedurally expel a wide swath of membership.

    I, along with the undersigned credentialed delegates to the 2021 LPNH convention, respectfully request that you recall Jilletta Jarvis from her position as Chair of the Executive Committee of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party.

    Dr. Joshua D Olitzky
    Erik Sawyer
    Mickey Mullin
    Seth Hall
    Deni O’Leary
    Alex Desmarais
    Gabrielle Desmarais
    John Elliott
    Jessica Pelletier
    William Barger
    Rosa Moura
    Sean Dempsey
    Brandon Brush
    Justin O’Donnell
    Jeremy Kauffman
    Dennis Pratt
    Rodney Dukelow
    Patrick Binder
    Mari Fontaine
    Grace merrell
    Jesse Garland
    Sean Brennan

  31. Rob

    > On Jun 13, 2021, at 10:18 PM, Sean Dempsey wrote:
    >
    > ?Jilletta,
    >
    > As requested now multiple times via phone and through emails and online channels, **please return all LPNH assets to the party**.
    >
    > If you have started a NEW coalition or group, fine – do as you please and be well.
    >
    > However, we demand that you immediately:
    > (1) provide access to the LPNH.org website,
    > (2) re-implement the LPNH.org email addresses for all elected LPNH EC members,
    > (3) provide access credentials to the LPNH social media accounts, and
    > (4) re-add everyone on the EC back to the LPNH Google Drive account.
    >
    > These assets do NOT belong to you or any NEW group you have decided to form; these assets belong to the LPNH and its membership. This is non-disputable.
    >
    > This will be our last and final request that party property be returned to party leadership.
    >
    > Please be aware if LPNH digital assets are not returned to LPNH control by Monday at 11am EST then the LPNH will be seeking legal remedies with the state of New Hampshire.
    >
    > We in the EC are giving you this final demand letter and personal warning in good faith to make this egregious situation right by returning stolen digital property back to its owners and rightfully-elected stewards.
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > -Sean Dempsey, LPNH At Large

    Reply:

    ?As stated, I will abide by the decision on Tuesday. To save you some money, waiting one day might be beneficial to you. They belong to National and I will abide by their decision on this.

    Jilletta

    Sean Dempsey Replies:

    ?Jilletta,

    You are woefully misinformed. Which is mind-boggling to me given your length of time in the party.

    The LPNH affiliate is an *independent organization* that is voluntarily associated with national. The social media accounts are the sole property of the state party.

    If you had done even a modicum of research before pursuit of this plot you would have discovered this immediately.

    The website itself is a slightly different story, only because it’s hosted by national; however, **the namecheap account and the LPNH.org domain name are legal property of the LPNH state party** and not national. The nameservers are just pointed to National’s web hosting to take advantage of the CiviCRM shared data project and their hosting environment.

    I will state this one last time as a final courtesy out of my previous respect for you: **return the property of the party to the party immediately**.

    It is party business how and if/when it deploys funds and IF we need to seek legal guidance and/or assistance to wrestle control back of assets then the party may even name you personally in the lawsuit as the misappropriator of said assets. Is this really what you want?

    How it saddens and sickens me that you would waste time, energy, and money from our membership on this ridiculous mockery of a scene.

    Theft of private property is as anti-libertarian as it gets!!

    We could all be directing this energy and attention into helping to build the party and gain traction for liberty in NH. Instead we are fighting for access in order to mitigate real damages you have caused. How sad. How woefully sad.

    Return party property immediately!

    -Sean Dempsey, At Large, LPNH

    And:

    Rich and Tucker,

    Please forward the below correspondence to the public business list reflector.

    Context: There have been numerous formal requests by the LPNH EC to our party’s chair (Jilletta Jarvis) to release assets owned by the party back to the party.

    She has repeatedly refused. Some of these refusals are seen below, where she is under the glass impression that LP National has say over the ownership of LPNH property.

    Ms Jarvis has effectively stolen LPNH digital assets, stopped the ability to bring on new membership and donations via our website, locked the EC out of our official LPNH email accounts, and is not providing access to documentation to rightfully-elected members of the LPNH EC.

    Based on her most recent response (below), Ms Jarvis is confused (or being intentionally obtuse) as to the ownership of these critical LPNH digital assets.

    The ownership of LPNH’s social media accounts, its website domain name (LPNH.org), and party documentation all are private property and owned by the LPNH and not by National.

    In Liberty,
    Sean Dempsey, At Large, LPNH
    Lifetime LPNH Member
    Lifetime LP National Member

  32. Thomas L Knapp

    “There is no mention of interim bylaws in that section. Please cite the section that empowers a chair to institute interim bylaws.”

    If I’d claimed there was any such section, I’d cite it. Since I didn’t, I won’t. All I noted was that she is not unilaterally instituting permanent bylaws changes, only interim ones. I didn’t claim she has the power to do either.

    “You will also note that Section IV, F, (2) that the power to appoint people to positions of leadership is subject to confirmation of the executive committee.”

    The section also includes a power to appoint without confirmation due to “urgency.”

  33. Jared

    Knapp: “When you’ve got a bad situation, deciding to immediately start running your yap with ‘unforced explanations,’ instead of taking time to look at that situation carefully while preparing to explain yourself at the the proper time and in the proper venue, is almost always a bad idea.”

    Fortunately JBH did issue a statement. It was full of digs at Harlos, and he grossly mischaracterized those two interviews by LNC members of the parties involved, but at least he clarified his position ahead of the meeting. And the reason he didn’t feel a sense of urgency is apparently because his letter to Jarvis was in fact interpreted correctly. That’s what needed clarification, and now it’s evident JBH acted without the LNC’s knowledge to exercise authority the chair doesn’t have.

    Look, I have no love for the Mises Caucus and sympathize with their critics who hate their clique-iness, boneheaded messaging, and comfort with right-wing populism. It’s an organization I would never join or support. The LPNH EC frankly looked like a bunch of snickering Proud Boys camped out in a seedy biker bar. I believe Jarvis did what she thought was best, but her unnamed sources, along with JBH, steered her in the wrong direction.

  34. Thomas L Knapp

    Jared,

    You seem to have read a different message from Mr. Bishop-Henchman than the one he sent to the LNC and posted on Facebook. That one says:

    “She asked for, and I gave her, as I have given and would give any state party chair on request, a letter affirming her status as representing the affiliate of the national Libertarian Party: a fact which was not even disputed at the time. These letters can be and are accepted by the FEC, banks, insurance companies, and many others, and I have no authority to refuse to provide a state chair with one. … Claims that I was some kind of co-conspirator are false. I do not as LNC Chair tell state chairs and officers what they should do. But neither was I terribly surprised by what happened, and frankly nobody on this committee should have been, either. “

  35. Aiden

    @Thomas L Knapp
    Well supposedly, just about 2 weeks ago, she called herself the “Den Mother” of the Mises caucus. It’s was in one of the email threads in the LNC business list, but I can’t seem to find it given the amount of chaos going on there.

  36. Thomas L Knapp

    Here’s the letter I sent to LNC at-large member Joshua Smith this morning:

    Dear Mr. Smith,

    I am writing to you in your capacity as an at-large member of the Libertarian National Committee. I’m also posting this letter to my personal blog, and hope that you will pass it on to the LNC via their business list.

    Why am I writing to you specifically? Because we are factional / ideological opponents, and it seems to me that the statement I’m about to make is strengthened by sending it through someone I would not normally be expected to share much “common ground” with. Here’s that statement:

    It is my considered opinion that the Libertarian National Committee’s legitimate affiliate in New Hampshire is the organization currently headed by interim chair Nolan Pelletier, rather than the new organization headed by Jilletta Jarvis.

    It is also my considered opinion that properly identifying the legitimate affiliate and treating it, rather than some other organization, as the legitimate affiliate is the only action which the LNC is entitled to take in the matter. Everything else is either an internal Libertarian Party of New Hampshire dispute, or a dispute between the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and another organization now using that name.

    Vis a vis that dispute, here’s why I must conclude that the Pelletier organization, rather than the Jarvis organization, is the legitimate affiliate:

    Ms. Jarvis relied on LPNH bylaws Section IV(F)(2) — “The Chair shall have the power to appoint persons to leadership roles within the State Party, subject to the confirmation of the Executive Committee, and may make immediate temporary appointments without confirmation if required to carry out tasks that require urgency” — as justification for accepting the “constructive resignations” of the entire LPNH executive committee and all other party committees and their members, save herself.

    That bylaws provision leaves a lot of room for skulduggery, and hopefully it will be amended in the future to more carefully outline the chair’s powers (if nothing else, perhaps the Judicial Committee should be exempted from non-confirmed appointments so that there’s someone to appeal abuse of it to).

    But, even assuming that Ms. Jarvis had the power to do what she did with respect to the LPNH’s committees, she did not have the power to dissolve the affiliate, replace it with an entirely new organization, and have that new organization automatically inherit the LNC affiliation which belonged to the old organization.

    In announcing new “interim” bylaws and new membership requirements which were not approved by the LPNH membership in convention, Ms. Jarvis clearly established a new organization separate and distinct from the old one.

    That new organization is not the LNC’s New Hampshire affiliate, and cannot become the LNC’s New Hampshire affiliate without a full vote of the LNC to 1) disaffiliate the Pelletier organization and 2) affiliate the Jarvis organization. Absent the first of those two actions on the LNC’s part, the Pelletier organization remains the legitimate affiliate.

    I’ve been a member of LPNH since 2016, and have served as a New Hampshire delegate to the Libertarian National Convention, although I don’t think my dues are current. I’ll be visiting New Hampshire for the first time later this month. I hope that the LNC has resolved this matter in favor of the legitimate affiliate before I arrive there, and that I find an LPNH in the process of healing its divisions.

    Best regards,
    Tom Knapp

  37. Jared

    Aiden: “I find it quite fascinating that one the key figures at this flair up is again Harlos”

    Harlos sees her role as the resident whistleblower on the LNC. Unfortunately she has subzero tact, and her otherwise laudible commitment to transparency manifests as a compulsion to air the party’s dirty laundry to as wide an audience as possible. That massive chip on her shoulder and habit of subjecting members she feels is being inconsistent to a scathing public exposé makes it hard for anyone to consider her a friend.

  38. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I have no doubt the HEISE HORDES and their camp followers were up to no good in NH and needed their asses kicked. It is funny to see them try to lie their way out of it. Not happy with the result of lefty PC police taking over, of course. Someone remind these people libertarians aren’t left or right but ahead.

    Here’s Joe Bishop-Henchman’s latest:

    Colleagues,

    This past weekend I was at the Libertarian Frontier Summit in Wyoming—where I saw elected Libertarians and a thriving, growing party that is fast becoming what I know all of us hope the Libertarian Party could be. We are taking the lead on a ballot initiative, we’ve elected people, and are well on our way to putting more Libertarians in state legislatures. Unfortunately, that is not where the interest and focus of this board and many Libertarians online have been.

    First, some context about New Hampshire. The New Hampshire party was recently taken over by a faction, group, caucus, whatever you want to call it, that has been making insane statements contradicting our platform and principles, that was trampling their own bylaws to purge their opponents, and was openly planning to not even run Libertarian candidates and instead support Republicans. Most egregiously, they even made a statement in support of the pro-Trump mob’s actions on January 6, which I regard as an extremely serious violation of the pledge we have all taken. All this under the control of an individual who does things like tweet about how black people have lower IQs and murdering trans people would be a good trade-off for lower taxes.

    At a breaking point and given the extremity of the situation, LPNH Chair Jilletta Jarvis determined that this blatant subversion of the party’s purposes and lawless actions of the state committee had amounted to their constructive resignation. Little different than if they had all gone out and endorsed Donald Trump or Joe Biden, basically. Thus, she felt she had no choice to reconstitute the organization as best she could, with the people she could, who still supported the mission of the party.

    Prior to this, Ms. Jarvis evidently anticipated a possible fight over control of social media accounts. She asked for, and I gave her, as I have given and would give any state party chair on request, a letter affirming her status as representing the affiliate of the national Libertarian Party: a fact which was not even disputed at the time. These letters can be and are accepted by the FEC, banks, insurance companies, and many others, and I have no authority to refuse to provide a state chair with one.

    Second, what did I know? I’m on the phone with state chairs, LNC members, donors, and activists for hours a day and there are always ten or twenty crises going on, some real and some imagined. I had heard for some time rumors and various reports that New Hampshire was headed for some sort of schism, almost on a weekly basis. And frankly that didn’t take any inside information to guess at. This ongoing fiasco was happening in full view of the entire LNC, and the country. I note that several members raised the issue as a concern at the Chicago meeting and were told in no uncertain terms that the LNC should not intervene (or even discuss options) by people who are now demanding precisely that.

    Claims that I was some kind of co-conspirator are false. I do not as LNC Chair tell state chairs and officers what they should do. But neither was I terribly surprised by what happened, and frankly nobody on this committee should have been, either. The details and timing, sure. But not at all that something like this was coming.

    Third, what should we do? The actions taken by the New Hampshire party and its individual members and officers here were theirs to make and this dispute is ultimately theirs to sort out. It is not our job as the LNC to impose our commands as to who should do what or work with whom or how this should ultimately be resolved. It is certainly not our place to adjudicate state party bylaws disputes. We have no such jurisdiction. Ultimately, if disputed slates of delegates are sent to the national convention, that’s for the convention to make a decision on.

    Fourth, what do I think, as an individual? I’ve been reluctant to share this because any of us rushing out a personal position is at odds with this Committee engaging in deliberation and sober judgment. But now that Ms. Harlos has poisoned the well with a kangaroo court interrogation of Ms. Jarvis, and public wild accusations have escalated this situation to make it an existential crisis, means we are past that point. So here is some of the tone I normally save for IRS attorneys or Republicans and Democrats.

    What was happening around Ms. Jarvis was indefensible, untenable, and at odds with the fundamental principles of what our party stands for. I sympathize entirely with her immense pain and frustration at being held to blame for decisions that were being made over her objection. And now, I know she has been the subject of violent threats (as have I) and as a result has serious, substantial concerns for her safety and that of her family. The people doing that to her are not merely misguided or having a difference of opinion. Their actions are evil. To be perfectly clear: there is no equivalence on that, no “both sides are doing it.” I cannot pretend otherwise. Do I personally think Ms. Jarvis was wrong? It’s not my place to decide, but as a former state chair I empathize with the difficult position she was in.

    The reality is that our party faces a binary choice between two very different visions and some very different, mutually exclusive principles. On the one hand is—it’s been called a takeover, but more honestly it is the destruction of the party as we know it, the end of a Libertarian Party worthy of that name. On the other hand are Libertarians—from across the entire spectrum of the party, prags and radicals and audacious and even many Mises rank and file—who oppose takeovers and destructive messaging and purging those who defy such demands, and instead want to focus on building up the party and electing principled Libertarians. And I have no problem saying: I am with them, and so long as I am Chair I will support them. Because the alternative is not just bad for the party. It means the party becoming something I could not and would not support, and would not tell others they should support.

    Throughout this, I have tried to stay positive. I ran for Chair promising that I would not engage in social media flamewars and endlessly denounce other Libertarians, and that is what I have stuck to. I don’t do two-hour videos denouncing my LNC colleagues, I don’t engage in abusive twitter threads, I don’t disparage the party in public interviews, and when I hold the gavel it is to ensure every voice is heard and every motion with a second gets a full vote. I have worked to support electing more Libertarians, professionalizing the party’s operations, developing our fundraising capabilities, and all the other priorities which our delegates endorsed with my election. I wanted to unite the party around that vision. I did not seek this position, and all the hard work it entails, to spite and fight other Libertarians. Unlike some members of this committee, I have not spent my energies trying to fuel bitter, destructive factionalism and an internal politics of personal destruction. Bombs are still falling, kids are still in cages, and here we are arguing this nonsense.

    In short, I did not run for chair of the third-largest political party in the United States so we can argue over who controls the damn Twitter accounts.

    Ms. Harlos and a few others have tried to somehow make this about attacking me. It’s obvious what she is doing and why. But the fact is, at this point, she has obviously, clearly, substantively interfered in New Hampshire more than I have. The only action I have taken here was indisputably proper and even routine—providing a letter I would provide to any state chair, that I couldn’t not provide, stating a fact that no one disputed on the date I issued it. The rest of the accusations are that I have opinions about what happened that she and others disagree with. Or, perhaps, that I didn’t immediately call them every time I hear rumors or hints about some state party drama brewing. If the national committee would like to remove me for that, it certainly can. But I think that’s a pretty silly digression from the matter at hand, which is what if anything we should do about the situation in New Hampshire now.

    Thank you,
    JBH

    _______________________
    Joe Bishop-Henchman
    Chair, Libertarian National Committee
    1444 Duke Street
    Alexandria, VA 22314-3403
    Cell (202) 766-5019
    http://www.lp.org | chair@lp.org | Twitter Facebook

  39. Jared

    TK,

    You’re right about the key passage of JBH’s statement. I read his email late last night soon after it was posted, and my main takeaway was that he believes circumstances in NH warranted Jarvis’s actions. His language denies transferring affiliation from one organization to another, true, while at the same time spinning as a fair reconstitution of the original party—effectively, but not technically, the same thing—as if two interpretations of his letter (“You are chair of the original and only LPNH,” pro forma, and “Constructively, you are chair of the non-Mises version of the LPNH”) are equally valid, and only Jarvis’s interpretation (“You are chair of a newly affiliated LPNH distinct from the original LPNH that still exists as an unaffiliated organization”) is invalid. Perhaps he has plausible deniability now that he seemed not to have before, but his certainly isn’t the most natural explanation in light of the known facts and timeline of events. As far as I know, nobody has alleged that JBH directed Jarvis to take any action, so that part is a bit of a red herring, and on his own account of his letter, he can reasonably maintain the LNC did not get involved until Smith and Harlos started raising hell about it. Your take might be 100% right, but it sure smells funny.

  40. Thomas L Knapp

    Jared,

    I agree wholeheartedly that it “smells funny.”

    The letter is explicable as a pro forma thing that the chair issues on request for affiliate use in e.g. state government registration matters,, but we have conflicting accounts of what JBH knew and when he knew it.

    Ms. Jarvis seems to assert in her informal interview with LNC members that JBH was aware of her plans and issued the letter pursuant to them.

    JBH asserts that while he’d heard rumors about what was happening in New Hampshire, he had no involvement in or prior knowledge of her plans.

    In the absence of evidence other than the conflicting accounts, I’m more inclined to take JBH’s word than Ms. Jarvis’s, for the simple reason that I know, like, and trust JBH, while I don’t know Ms. Jarvis. But if there is other evidence that shows up, I’m willing to change my opinion on that.

    To me, the first and main order of business is establishing which of the two organizations is, in fact, the LNC’s affiliate. In my opinion, that affiliate is the Pelletier organization rather than the Jarvis organization. I don’t have to like it. That seems to be the fact whether I like it or not, and I try to go with the facts even when those facts conflict with my preferences.

    Apart from that bit of business, everything involving New Hampshire per se is New Hampshire’s business, not the LNC’s business. But any misbehavior on the part of the LNC’s chair or other LNC members is the LNC’s business, and presumably they’ll get into that as well.

  41. Steve m

    Can anyone explain how this problem comes under the duties of the LNC Secretary?

  42. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Tonight decided to watch a docudrama on William the Norman Conqueror of England 1066, since my Barrett ancestors came conquering England with him.

    When they got to the part about how he burned a bunch of villages around London to terrify the Londoners into submission, the light bulbs went off… SO THAT’S WHAT HEISE IS DOING. Totally destroy one or two state parties to scare everyone off. Of course the silly newbies who are the tool of BigMikeTheConueror – or whatever his screen name in on some social media – may not know what the strategy is, except chaos for the sake of chaos. One joke meme has one follower saying “I don’t understand Bylaws, I just do what Big Mike says!”

    See my memes making fun of “Sieg Heise” and the “Heise Caucus” at https://facebook.com/carolmoore1776

  43. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    As for JBH message, I think he does a believable defense. It is his job to give the State Chair letters to DO THINGS. He probably didn’t know for sure when She was going to do what. (i.e., the next day!) And he was hoping at some point someone was going to kick their butts, and if this be it, so be it.

    I’ve been in big fights with the hyper PC jerks who call gender critical women “TERFs” – a slur often associated with threats of violence. I’ve kicked off anyone from pro-choice libs who uses that or similar slurs. The other women appreciate it. I’d prefer not to be heavy handed but sometimes ya gotta do it.

    Hopefully NH, with all it’s GOP to libertarian to GOP crossovers, will be the only case like this.

    The Heise Caucus newbies somewhat obnoxiously tried to take over delaware and got a few seats, not enough to control. And now they are learning what it’s like to have to know how to use Robert Rules. Ha ha. Sometimes RR have their uses! Luckily there are some strong old timers there who won’t let them get away with much. And they get to play footsie with me.

    I even have some funny stories to tell about my several conversations with Heise the Conqueror at June 5 LP DE convention.

    For example, he says he “doesn’t care” if all the single guys are cock blocked by the LP getting rid of the abortion platform or becoming an anti-abortion party. Filled with flirty fisher cock tease old crones like Ms. Harlos. Oh the Heise/Harlos meme I controlling myself in not making. Don’t want to hear all that “body shaming” whining again. Use your imagination. ha ha ha

    Carol in lucky delaware now (mostly just hunkering down)

  44. Floyd Whitley

    Parliamentary process is doubled edged, as it were. Malefactors often can and do manipulate it, thereby effectively denying deliberation, which is absolutely contrary to parliamentary purpose.

    Apparently the Jarvis slate in New Hampshire claims the Mises Caucus slate has done this. Therefore the Jarvis slate asserts a casus belli. What the Jarvis slate depend upon is an age-old view: “For extreme diseases, extreme methods of cure, as to restriction, are most suitable.”–Aphorisms by Hippocrates, c. 400 BC.

    Perhaps true with medicine in rare circumstances, but in this matter I cannot help but think that the remedy taken may prove worse than the malady.

    It is my experience that every malevolent actor this Earth has ever endured has used the exact same justification. And now both sides resort to countering with maligned interpretations of the operable bylaw to “prove” their abuse of process. To what end, if bylaws are not to be followed?

  45. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Jarvis et al probably should have let them just rock out in their destructiveness for another few weeks. Then there would have been no question at all on LNC but to disaffiliate the LP NH.

    So will Dick Heise and his underlings come back even more destructive after/if they get the party back. Or will they have learned their lesson. Or just get bored with their new toy. Time will tell.

  46. Floyd Whitley

    Incidentally, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party’s bylaws have some sort of typo error at page 5, under its VII. Executive Committee & Leadership Board, B. Leadership Board, 6; to wit: “The officers of the State Party shall be the officers of the Board.Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire”.

    I am uncertain as to the intended meaning of that clause. Regardless, my point is that I have read the bylaws, and in them I find no authorization granting the Chairwoman leave to take the actions that have been taken, at least not as I understand your state party’s bylaws.

    I say this as an objective observer. Consider it an amicus curiae. Your bylaws divisionally vest “primary governing power” into three entities–namely the Executive Committee, the Leadership Board and the State Convention. It is an enormous mistake to bypass this clear vestment of power via what amounts to usurpation by the party Chair, in my view.

    Now as for claims that the Mises Caucus has or that it intends to subvert the stated principles of the party and by way of example not run Libertarian candidates in deference to those deemed “liberty Republicans,” that could and should have been handled within the bylaws as an infraction of your Purpose and Principles (at III, which, one would think, bind the whole organization.

  47. Joe Buchman

    “Tempers are flaring and personal animosities are running high in some quarters. Our party cannot afford these divisions. The enemies of freedom would like nothing better than to see us divided and diverted in this matter. We must not give them that satisfaction!”

    David F. Nolan, An Open Letter to the Delegates, Anaheim, 28 June 2000

  48. Ciara L Mathey

    There is a comment on here from Jake Leonard that is ENTIRELY untrue. He is speaking about my husband’s personal health issues that have NOTHING to do with the LP or Mises. He is a liar.

  49. Shawn Levasseur

    “The Mises Caucus is formed of Ron Paul supporters. That’s enough to say they are not good people, given his newsletters.”

    George, that’s a blanket accusation that doesn’t apply to everyone who supported Ron’s recent runs for the GOP nomination the newsletters were way in the past, and have little to do with his modern support.

    There are many Ron Paul fans in the LP who came in after how his earned delegates were treated by the GOP, and have nothing to do with, nor were the result of the paleo strategy. If anything, they were more attracted to the anti-war aspect of his candidacy.

    Not saying that the problems with the paleo strategy don’t exist in the present, but they cannot be so broadly applied to everyone who supported Ron Paul.

  50. SocraticGadfly

    Just when you think the Green Party is a hot steaming mess, the Libertarians top it.

  51. George Whitfield

    Shawn, Thank you for your post about Ron Paul. I was thinking the same thing.

  52. Aiden

    Elected LP member (Sasha Cohen) has defected because of this… they’re claiming if the party doesn’t disaffiliate LPNH, they will be holding a press conference Monday publicly announcing their departure. As I guess should be expected Harlos doesn’t give a shit.

  53. Thomas L Knapp

    I hate to see Sasha leave the party.

    But I also consider “disaffiliate an entire state organization, of which I am not a member, for no stated cause other than an un-elaborated and un-argued allegation that it violated the Statement of Principles or I walk” is an unreasonable ultimatum.

  54. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow. I hope this gets contained soon, or it will become another non-fixable Oregon.

  55. Jared

    Well… Joe Bishop-Henchman has resigned as chair.

    It also looks like Secretary Harlos will be suspended. She’s calling basically everyone on the LNC (save for Joshua Smith) an ableist, sexist, traitorous coward for daring to vote on a depersonalized email motion to silence an anti-corruption whistlerblower, and she promises to run again for secretary and to draw as much media attention as possible to her situation. Dave Smith is tweeting furiously that he will ensure everyone who voted to remove her is forever “hated and opposed.”

    Meanwhile, the Pragmatist Caucus has dissolved itself.

    Busy day.

  56. wolfefan

    Per the LNC business list, there is now a motion pending to appoint a committee to investigate this whole matter. The investigation would be limited to events occurring no earlier than the 2021 LPNH convention, which might mean that whatever led up to the current controversy would not be a part of the investigation. Per the motion the committee would have access to personal emails of people involved, which seems unlikely to actually happen, and would be selected by the LNC, which means that it’s membership would not necessarily be reflective of or fair to the various sides of the controversy.

  57. Jared

    Francis Wendt resigned from the LNC this morning (and from every position he holds in the Libertarian Party), citing the increasingly toxic behavior and influence of Joshua Smith and especially Caryn Ann Harlos. He says in his resignation letter, “The Mises Caucus can have the LP if they want it,” but he has “never been against them or any caucus.”

  58. ben morrid

    The left loves censorship and tyrannical powers. Typically they avoid discussing issues and stick to ad hominem. Whine and name call all you want. I just described exactly what happened.

  59. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    LNC pass motion to investigate LP NH Affair
    QUOTE:
    The LNC shall appoint three members to lead an ad hoc investigative committee which shall provide an independent and thorough investigation into the events which lead to the splintering of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire affiliate. The Libertarian National Committee shall vote on the three members immediately following the passage of this motion. All members must have been a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing for the past five (5) years.

    The purpose of the committee will be to provide recommendations to the LNC, JC, and Bylaws committee to resolve any revealed issues. As well as set forth a model of investigating internal matters.

    The committee shall form a timeline of events starting at the LP New Hampshire’s 2021 state convention until present; determine the involvement of LNC members and LPNH leadership, interview pertinent members of both organizations; review any pertinent party run or personal electronic communications of the parties involved; and set forth a model of investigating internal issues not covered by the Judicial Committee, Bylaws, and Policy Manual.

    The investigative committee shall be granted access to and review any Party emails and communications, the LNC shall direct Executive Director Tyler Harris to assist in the procurement process.

    During the course of the investigation, the investigative committee may seek permission to access any LPNH assets they deem pertinent by the appropriate local affiliate officials.

    The investigative committee shall report back to the LNC for a debriefing of the findings, recommendations, and final thoughts upon the investigation being determined complete by the committee. The committee shall disband upon its final report. END QUOTE

    Let it be noted that Ms. Harlos was the deciding vote to require “All members must have been a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing for the past five (5) years.”

    That pretty much lets out most of the Heise caucus/cult people who’ve just joined in last couple years. Sorry. Not sorry.

  60. Aiden

    ben morrid …. Umm, did you listen to Trump in 2016 and 2020? His ENTIRE campaign was ad hominems. It’s something done by both Republicans and Democrats, and most AUTHORITARIANS, for that matter. Your criticism of the “left” and not equal criticism (for the exact same thing) of the “right” simply tells me you’re a hypocritical partisan. That’s basically all your post said, “I’m a hypocritical partisan”…. nothing else.

  61. Aiden

    I’m now at the point where I’m leaving the party too. The LP can burn in hell….I’m partial convinced this is what the Mises Caucus wants…. If they genuinely have a plan of halting LP nominations for office and basically endorsing “Ron Paul Republicans”, they can achieve that through two means, 1) Take over the party and not run candidates, or 2) Burn the entire thing to the ground and not have a party. The problem is for them, they’re under the delusion that LP voters will vote Repub. I ain’t going anywhere the totalitarian hell hole that is the GOP, I don’t care who they nominate. All this is doing is guaranteeing a Democratic Party majority for the next decade; millennials and Gen Z will not now and will not ever, vote GOP.

    The fantastic thing is, I was months away from finally being able to afford donating $100 monthly; they’re getting nothing now. Saves me a ton of cash.

  62. Jared

    Aiden, I doubt you’re the only one.

    Considering the formative intellectual influences on Mises Caucus leadership—

    Late-phase Murray Rothbard, architect of the paleo strategy to embrace right-wing populism who advocated police violence against undesirables while claiming to be an “anarchist.” In his own words, “unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?” Listening to their rhetoric, I get the impression that most active LPMC believe real libertarianism simply IS right-Rothbardianism.

    Gary North, a theonomic reconstructionist, who sees libertarian decentralism as a means to dismantle the secular liberal state in order to clear the way for Calvinist fundamentalist theocracy. Josh Smith made the mistake of distancing himself from North in a conversation with social progressive Libertarians, and Dave Smith took him to the woodshed for dissing an ally.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Rothbard’s spiritual successor, a radical anti-egalitarian and far-right cultural protectionist and manorialist who openly admires the Alt-Right and shares North’s basic instrumental approach but would replace theonomy with diet fascistic, bastard feudalism.

    Lew Rockwell, a career conspiracy theorist and Rothbardo-Hoppean who believes left-libertarians are “imposters” and “the Left wants to destroy Western civilization.” The guy published a post-election open letter to Donald Trump telling him he was the rightful president and urging him to pardon himself, his family, and all the committed anti-leftists in his administration.

    Mencius Moldbug, the neo-reactionary blogger who laments that “applied Christianity” has indoctrinated people against the rational belief that slavery can be a healthy state of affairs because social structures of dominance and submission are natural. He coined the favorite LPMC term “Cathedral” to refer to liberal democratic institutions.

    And these guys are supposedly taking over the Libertarian Party to champion radical “bold messaging.” Joshua Smith taunted other LNC members to remove him after Harlos is suspended because, hey, the Mises Caucus will just reinstall them both when they elect Angela McArdle to chair. Anyone who stands in their way will face consequences. Despite what they’ve said in past interviews, I don’t think electing dedicated Libertarians to public office is anywhere near the top of their agenda.

  63. Thomas L Knapp

    “Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Rothbard’s spiritual successor, a radical anti-egalitarian and far-right cultural protectionist and manorialist who openly admires the Alt-Right and shares North’s basic instrumental approach but would replace theonomy with diet fascistic, bastard feudalism.”

    Not to mention a self-declared Marxist, of the Frankfurt-educated “cultural” type.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *