Libertarian National Committee Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos is the plaintiff in a derivative lawsuit against the LNC and its Chair, Angela McArdle. Harlos disclosed her involvement in a post on the LNC’s public business list on Wednesday.
Harlos shared her involvement in the lawsuit in a thread about updated conflicts of interest, clarifying that while she is the plaintiff, she does not see this as a conflict but was instead being transparent. She also provided the case number to the lawsuit. A full copy of the lawsuit is available here and shows the suit was filed on Tuesday.
Notably, the suit is being handled by the Veritas Law Firm, which also represented former Region 7 Representative Beth Vest in a previous lawsuit against the Libertarian National Committee during its last term. Similarly, the case is filed under the laws of the District of Columbia, namely D.C. Code § 29–411.02.
The lawsuit accuses McArdle of violating her fiduciary duties and loyalty to the LNC through actions such as self-dealing, misuse of party resources, and failure to disclose critical conflicts of interest. This includes allegedly directing party funds to external organizations without the Libertarian National Committee’s approval. Harlos argues that McArdle’s actions have caused irreparable harm to the Libertarian Party, citing a “mass exodus” of membership and declining fundraising as direct consequences of McArdle’s leadership decisions.
The suit proceeds to outline several specific instances where McArdle allegedly violated her duties, including her involvement with the Rage Against the War Machine and Rescue the Republic events, certain hiring decisions made during her tenure, and the termination of party headquarters staff to rent the party’s building to potential tenants. Additional grievances include McArdle’s invitation to former Republican President Donald Trump to speak at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention and the formation of the Kennedy Victory Fund with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign.
Harlos also alleges personal harm, noting she has invested both time and money in the party and has suffered “reputational damage” from efforts to remove her, which she attributes to “direct encouragement and inappropriate interference” from McArdle. Additionally, Harlos also contends that she has been subjected to “retaliatory behavior” for advocating that the party adhere to its principles, ensure ballot access for its presidential ticket, and pursue internal complaints against a staff member aligned with McArdle, who she says played a key role in the effort to displace the Libertarian presidential ticket in Colorado.
The lawsuit calls for McArdle’s immediate suspension and removal as LNC Chair, arguing that her continued leadership threatens the party’s stability and future. It also seeks to prevent McArdle from being reelected, reappointed, or redesignated to any future position within the party.
Nonapplicable is nonapplicable
@Actually
Acknowledge your faults, by all means, but save your confessions for Church.
Data – you can only feel bullied by nonsense if you don’t scroll past it or laugh at it. Those are the only two reactions any of it deserves. I regret having to say I told you so . Different people have different entry points and learning curves but everyone has some limit to how much time and effort can be spent arguing over whether the sky tends to appear as blue to the human eye on a clear sunny day.
However, some people feel they “win” once people no longer bother arguing that they are wrong since they only ever double down on anything no matter what , and tend to be the very people most psychologically in need of a perceived win. Couple this with innate contrarian tendencies and you get a vortex that the cost benefit ratio of engaging is invariably negative .
Other people feel like if they only repeat themselves enough times everyone will see they’re right and so they keep doing it regardless of results in perpetuity
Sometimes those two kinds of people are one and the same
Choose your own adventure, and good luck
Meanwhile the el pee will keep on keeping on fracturing and diminishing as one or more people predicted and showed precedents for further below
@Afactual “Data” Fraud
“So, you offer only name calling and present no actual data […] bullying of other commenters with word salad and statements in support of your assertions that have no place in reality.”
That would be you, and your pitiful attempt to deny reality (the burden of proof for which thus rests fully on you) using the wrong dataset which is incomplete to boot.
“I hope you’re proud of your accomplishment”
Not to be overly smug about it, but I am in fact disproportionately proud of how cleanly and eloquently I managed to debunk and expose your nonsense.
“I hope you have the day you deserve!”
Why thank you, that’s the nicest thing you’ve said yet! And from your tone, it sounds like you already having the day you deserve, so that certainly helps make my day 🙂
@Nuna
So, you offer only name calling and present no actual data. Got it.
I hope you’re proud of your accomplishment of bullying of other commenters with word salad and statements in support of your assertions that have no place in reality.
I hope you have the day you deserve!
Anonymous Data Fetcher – I stopped in April 2021 because that is as far back as the LNC has provided revised numbers. Have a chart: https://i.imgur.com/q1lyoTv.png
I also track voter registration: https://i.imgur.com/FFeows5.png
Data isn’t final, yet, but there is a very high chance that LP voter registrations will be negative in the 2022 – 2024 period, which would be the first time that has occurred since 2004 – 2006. The flat or negative voter registrations corroborates the falling dues paying membership numbers. It shows that it isn’t just a problem among the few people who pay attention to the doings of the LNC, but is broader, and includes people who potentially would have affiliated with the LP but only had more superficial contact, such as through social media postings.
Data Fletcher
You are wasting your time == take my word for it or FAFO AKA learn the hard way LOL
@Afactual “Data” Fraud
Well, there goes what little was left of your credibility out the window.
“Registration by party only occurs in 30ish states, so it’s a non-factor when determining membership in a political party.”
It’s a “non-factor” despite occurring in most states? It’s a “non-factor” despite accounting for the overwhelming majority of most party members in all states taken collectively? It’s a “non-factor” despite being the literal definition of “party membership” in use for as long as the United States has had political parties?
“The LNC itself defines who a member is based on their actions.”
Hah! The LNC wishes it was that important.
No, on the contrary, the electorate defines who are members of which party, based on how they register to vote. And the secretaries of states are charged with keeping track of that membership in their state. As it has always been in the United States.
You are erroneously trying to redefine “members”, so as only to include the small number of people who finance the party through donations, “dues”, giving away their private data to the party by creating online accounts, etc., so that you can pretend membership began the exponential decline in membership began prior to the national convention that saw non-delegates fraudulently voting as if they were delegates, that saw a presidential candidate violate floor during a vote so as to change the outcome of the vote, and that saw the delegates being misinformed that voting NOTA would lose most state affiliates ballot access.
But that’s silly. Going by such a (mis)definition, I’ve never been the member of any party, nor have the overwhelming majority of people, which clearly isn’t the case.
“The data was provided to the LNC (and TPW shared it) to show the actual ‘sustaining’ membership as the LNC defines it.”
Firstly, it was provided by some unknown person who Phillies claims is called “Jim” (TPW provides no verifiable source whatsoever).
Secondly, and more importantly, who cares how the LNC defines anything? They have no power to change existing definitions. They have no authority by which to force their false definitions on anyone. Their party is falling apart exactly because they cannot be trusted, because they lie and cheat about everything – down to their very name, “Libertarian”.
“It’s reported monthly by staff on the business list.”
What business list would that be? I’m on the LNC BINO (business in name only) list – shout-out to Adrian Malagon, who has emerged as the LNC’s voice of reason – and it certainly is not reported monthly there.
My best guess to what you may be thinking of, is Hannah Kennedy’s monthly slide deck somewhat misleadingly named “Membership Report”. If so, don’t let yourself be fooled by the name: it does not report the membership. It is just a periodic, unofficial (quasi) financial report intended to indicated how many suckers the LP has conned into committing to a subscription, i.e. an indication of what fixed revenue the national party can expect directly from individuals for whom they have to provide no value in return.
Now, I would imagine it is fairly safe to assume – though in theory not certain – that those figures will always be only a small fraction of the actual membership, which would explain why your numbers are way off.
“t’s pretty damning that since April 2021, they’ve fallen to 60% of that “high water mark” in pretty obvious fashion month after month by trendline. They’ve only dropped by 3ish% from May 2024’s numbers, when you claimed the drop began.”
The LP has been leaking away members for years – since long before the Mises Caucus was created – presumably correlating to the party moving further and further away from libertarianism. But the unprecedented hemorrhaging of members witnessed over the last few months only began after the illegitimate “nomination” of the Oliver-ter Maat ticket on the evening of the third day of this year’s national convention (Sunday May 26th). And it coincides with an proportional drop in funding: the subscriptions continue until they run out, but one-off donations dropped exponentially.
“Also, because most memberships are annual (aside from monthly pledgers and lifetime members) and few people actively resign them during the year, instead choosing to just not renew, it’s a lagging indicator of support for the party.”
Again, you are only considering the tiniest fraction of members, namely to suckers who are stuck in a contract. (Just watch those numbers drop that figure collapse too, when the annual subscription runs out.)
(Now former) LP members have been actively going to the trouble of changing their voter registration, just so that are no longer associated with such an anti-libertarian ticket as Oliver-ter Maat.
“The decline that is shown from April 2021 (which is the earliest data they provided in the membership report that article on TPW covered) shows that is when renewals stopped happening.”
Not even your erroneous figures show any exponential decline. They also conveniently do not include the previous years, as you said, which I expect saw higher numbers, because, as I said, the party has been slowly leaking members for years – decades even – as it continues to move further and further away from libertarianism.
“With that in mind, simple data analysis shows the decline in human behavior (continuing monthly pledges and renewing memberships) began at some point in the prior 12 months.”
Data analysis, no matter how simple, still requires accurate and correct data. In fact, the simpler the analysis, the more susceptible it is to distortions and cherry picking.
“Your declarations in comments aren’t convincing when the ACTUAL data is presented.”
Try providing “the ACTUAL data” – pretentious twat – and you will see that the facts line up perfectly with my previous comments. Of course, I am providing an interpretation which is up for debate. But the fact that membership and revenue only started hemorrhaging after this year’s national convention shenanigans, is not.
@Nuna
Registration by party only occurs in 30ish states, so it’s a non-factor when determining membership in a political party. The LNC itself defines who a member is based on their actions.
Regardless, that’s not how the party defines membership. The data was provided to the LNC (and TPW shared it) to show the actual “sustaining” membership as the LNC defines it. It’s reported monthly by staff on the business list. It’s pretty damning that since April 2021, they’ve fallen to 60% of that “high water mark” in pretty obvious fashion month after month by trendline. They’ve only dropped by 3ish% from May 2024’s numbers, when you claimed the drop began. Commenter Jim simply assisted George, the post author, with some typos/transpositions.
Also, because most memberships are annual (aside from monthly pledgers and lifetime members) and few people actively resign them during the year, instead choosing to just not renew, it’s a lagging indicator of support for the party. The decline that is shown from April 2021 (which is the earliest data they provided in the membership report that article on TPW covered) shows that is when renewals stopped happening. With that in mind, simple data analysis shows the decline in human behavior (continuing monthly pledges and renewing memberships) began at some point in the prior 12 months. I’ll leave readers to determine any correlation with world and party events at that time they might see.
Your declarations in comments aren’t convincing when the ACTUAL data is presented.
@George Whitfield
While every libertarians has the moral obligation to oppose anti-libertarians like Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat, they also have the individual liberty to vote any way they want. There is an important difference between someone who is a national officer saying how they are going to vote, and a national officer using their office to make an official endorsement in the name of the party.
However, Hannah Goodman isn’t a national officer, but a Colorado officer. And she did try to do her duty as a Colorado officer in supporting the ticket nominated by LPCO, namely Kennedy-Shanahan. However, she and LPCO got screwed over by Harlos and Griswold conspiring behind their backs to ensure Oliver-ter Maat will appear on the Colorado ballot illegally as if they are the legitimate “Libertarian Party” ticket.
—
@ADF
I don’t know where TPW’s Jim got those numbers from – though if it’s the same as IPR and BAN’s Jim then I can think of a place the sun never shines – but they certainly aren’t correct. For instance, the ~17k given for 2022 is only a tiny fraction of the total number of people who registered as LP when registering to vote that year.
—
@Unimportant
The first part will happen naturally the moment the Mises Caucus does not hold the majority of leadership positions, and will probably happen regardless though at a slower rate. The latter part, enforcing a trademark in perpetuity, is not only ideologically at odds with most views of libertarianism, but is in my opinion also simply not a good idea because it hampers efforts to restore hijacked labels, like libertarian and liberal, to their original right-wing meanings.
They should commit corporate suicide by dissolving their corporation or party or social club or whatever it is and ask the states to remove them from ballots, delete them from official party status lists and voter firms, but enforce a trademark in perpetuity so no future candidates use their nuclear radioactive party name again to embarrass what is overall a directionally good idea just fundamentally and profoundly incompatible with voting and electoral politics.
@Nuna
Even if you count the 24 member increase from Feb 2024 to March 2024 and a couple blips here and there, the last 3+ years don’t support your supposition
2021
20,005 Apr
19,578 May **the month when many 1 year memberships would drop following the 2020 convention season**
18,839 June
17,942 July
17,474 Aug
17,292 Sept
17,518 Oct
17,325 Nov
17,457 Dec
2022
17,155 Jan
17,089 Feb
17,089 Mar
16,988 Apr
16,921 May
17,629 June
17,683 July
17,616 Aug
17,409 Sept
17,316 Oct
17,305 Nov
16,988 Dec
2023
16,507 Jan
16,308 Feb
15,954 Mar
15,539 Apr
15,060 May
14,080 June
13,620 July
12,728 Aug
12,317 Sept
12,747 Oct
12,492 Nov
12,344 Dec
2024
12,326 Jan
12,334 Feb
12,358 Mar
12,211 Apr
12,204 May **when Nuna claimed the membership decline began**
11,936 June
11,892 July
The national officers of the Libertarian Party should support the candidates of the Libertarian Party and not those of other parties.
“The claim of ‘Nuna’ that the drop in national membership has to do with Chase Oliver is a bald-faced lie. The exodus began when MC won a majority and took over NatComm.”
My, what a lively imagination you have. But unless you are suggesting that LP members are a bit slow and only reacted very belatedly, membership shows clearly that the party only started hemorrhaging members (and funds) after the national convention shenanigans. And the predominant criticism given by the droves of people quitting the party, is of either Oliver, or ter Maat, or both, but mostly of Oliver.
“I was one of the people who immediately resigned.”
Ah. So it is merely the delusion of grandeur that everyone else thinks as you do.
“If anything, Chase Oliver is the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal outlook for National.”
An opinion that does not appear to be widely shared outside of your cramped echo chamber.
“To have nominated an *actual* libertarian”
They didn’t. Nor could they have, since none were nominated.
“instead of a right-wing MC hack”
There is no such thing. That is a contradiction in terms, given that the Mises Caucus – while perhaps somewhat less extreme left-wing than many others in the LINO party – is still appallingly leftist.
“they managed it by the hair of their chinny-chin-chin”
They managed it only by cheating, not once but repeatedly. Much like the Democrats “winning” the 2020 election, which is very appropriate given that both Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat are in every particular just two more Democrats.
“Chase has a future in the party if he chooses to exercise it, and to bring the National party back to actually being libertarian.”
Hah! Now those really are bald-faced lies.
Oliver has no more future in the party than he does in his lineage. He is both an ideological and a biological dead end. Under him there is no party, much less a future.
The only thing currently holding the last few tattered shreds of the national party together is the Mises Caucus, without which it will fall apart even further that it already has, into isolated state parties most of which will themselves further disintegrate within a matter of weeks to months.
Not that it would be in any way a bad thing for libertarianism in the US.
The claim of “Nuna” that the drop in national membership has to do with Chase Oliver is a bald-faced lie. The exodus began when MC won a majority and took over NatComm. I was one of the people who immediately resigned. The drop has gone on since. If anything, Chase Oliver is the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal outlook for National. To have nominated an *actual* libertarian, instead of a right-wing MC hack, was more than I thought a party convention could manage these days, but they managed it by the hair of their chinny-chin-chin. Chase has a future in the party if he chooses to exercise it, and to bring the National party back to actually being libertarian.
How about if all the libertarians excommunicate each other already and get it over with? Why prolong the inevitable? Every running joke eventually gets old and stale. The LP has its best years behind it, as do all political parties in general in the US.
I agree with Harlos’ general point that McArdle has been a traitor to the party: essentially trying to undermine anything she is unable to convert into a Trump fundraising group.
However, a lawsuit isn’t the right answer. The proper solution is to vote McArdle and team out, and if that’s not possible to start over with the state parties that are still Libertarian.
Harlos should be expelled immediately. She’s a running joke at this point.
Has she gone a week between drama incidents in her many years on the board?
Welcome to the Reform Party circa October 2000, with the same sort of outlook for the next xx (x..) years as the Reform Party had at that point …
Remember when McArdle said she did not wish herself or the party to get dragged into frivolous lawsuits due to Harlos’s bullshit… Aged well, hasn’t it.
“she does not see this as a conflict but was instead being transparent”
There is nothing either [conflict of interest] or [being transparent] but thinking makes it so…
“actions such as self-dealing, misuse of party resources, and failure to disclose critical conflicts of interest”
So everything Harlos does on a daily basis herself.
“Harlos argues that McArdle’s actions have caused irreparable harm to the Libertarian Party, citing a ‘mass exodus’ of membership and declining fundraising”
While Harlos has certainly TRIED to cause irreparable harm to the LP, the mass exodus has much more to do with Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat than with her, and her repeated attempts to sabotage fundraising have thus far gone led to nothing other than her throwing pathetic tantrums in the mailing list.
“grievances include […] the formation of the Kennedy Victory Fund with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign”
Harlos is angry about “declining fundraising”, but also does not want the LP to accept a cut of the money donated to RFK which the LP would otherwise never have seen a penny of.
“Harlos also alleges personal harm”
Extremely unlikely, but one can wish.
“she has invested both time and money in the party”
Au contraire. She has invested time into getting money out of the party.
“has suffered ‘reputational damage’ from efforts to remove her”
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/458/196/e63.jpg
The only thing she has suffered reputational damage from, is her own embarrassing misbehavior.
“advocating that the party adhere to its principles, ensure ballot access for its presidential ticket”
McArdle advocates that the party adhere to its principles. Whereas Harlos advocates that the party adhere to a presidential ticket which has nothing to do with the party’s principles.
“pursue internal complaints against a staff member”
Just say Hannah Goodman.
“The lawsuit calls for McArdle’s immediate suspension and removal as Libertarian National Committee Chair, arguing that her continued leadership threatens the party’s stability and future.”
What stability and future? LOL Without McArdle keeping the shreds together, there is no more party. Which is probably for the best.
And Harlos is done for either way, so that’s win-win.
“It also seeks to prevent McArdle from being reelected, reappointed, or redesignated to any future position within the party.”
How very libertarian XD
How often didn’t McArdle have to put Harlos back in her place because she started pretending to have the authority of chair again? And how often didn’t Harlos slink away, tail tucked between her legs, trying to pass off these glimpses of her will to power as a joke? Everybody following the mailing list saw this pathetic coup attempt coming a long way off.