Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants in Roos et al. v. Libertarian National Committee

The following Amicus Curiae Brief was submitted to the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee in support of the appellants in Roos et al. v. LNC on September 19, 2025, by the Executive Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, Abbra Green:

To the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party:

I, Abbra Green, State Secretary of The Libertarian Party of Hawaii, submit this amicus brief in support of the Appellants in Roos et al. v. Libertarian National Committee. As guardians of liberty in the Aloha State, we've watched in horror as the LNC plunges a knife straight into the heart of our party's soul by repudiating the Statement of Principles that has defined us since 1974. This can be viewed through no other lens but an existential threat. The LNC's response, penned by Jonathan McGee, dismisses our sacred principles as mere philosophy, warning that holding leaders accountable to them would be "dangerous." Dangerous? To whom? To the bureaucrats clinging to power, perhaps, but not to the radical liberty we fight for every day.

I urge the Judicial Committee to stand firm: void the LNC's unprincipled resolutions; reaffirm the binding force of our Statement of Principles. Anything less spells catastrophe for the Libertarian Party. We must not let the firmly held "Party of Principle" be transformed into just another spineless political machine, indistinguishable from the very statists we oppose.

I. The Statement of Principles: The Unbreakable Bedrock of Our Party

Let's start with The Libertarian Party Bylaws, Convention Special Rules, And  Judicial Committee Rules of Appellate Procedure, which the LNC is sworn to uphold. 

Article 3 couldn't be clearer: 

"The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail." 

This isn't vague poetry; it's a mandate. The party isn't just inspired by these principles; it's sustained by them. 

Article 2 reinforces this:

"The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles…" 

And Article 7 explicitly binds the LNC to adhere to Article 2: 

"The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these bylaws. The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 2." 

The LNC's every move must align with the Statement of Principles because that's the core purpose of the party itself.

But apparently, that's not binding on Jonathan McGee and the "factionless" LNC. In their respondent brief in Roos et al. v. LNC, filed on September 16, 2025, they have the audacity to claim: 

"While Article 3 clearly states the purpose of the Statement of Principles, how it can be amended, and its relationship with the party platform, shockingly it does not actually state that LNC actions are bound by the Statement of Principles." 

Shockingly? The only shock here is the LNC's willingness to misrepresent our foundational documents to evade responsibility. 

The brief goes further, asserting: 

“The LNC maintains that it is not bound by the Statement of Principles and further asserts that the Statement of Principles is a philosophical foundation and not a self-executing disciplinary code. Treating the Statement of Principles as a self-executing disciplinary code could have dangerous future implications.”

Aspirational? Philosophical? This is the language of bureaucrats (and/or lawyers?) dodging accountability, not the sentiments of sincerely liberty-loving leaders. 

Has McGee read our bylaws? What exactly is a “self-executing disciplinary code,” and why is one necessary in this scenario?

I start with this topic to bring light to its importance. If such a theory were to become the standard for LNC accountability, it would have dire consequences. We cannot get to the bottom of any investigation or appeal before we are able to establish common ground. Every case against an individual must be based on the principles we expect our members to uphold.

Our Platform begins with a clear statement:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. 

The argument could have reflected the stance that the principles do not directly apply to the appeal’s claims, but it should not be claiming that the LNC is “not bound by the Statement of Principles”. It brings the argument too far beyond the scope of the appeal, and raises serious questions about the LNC’s loyalties if it stands without objection. 

The header of our platform, which uses the Statement of Principles below its preamble, reads:

“The following principles form the bedrock of a free and prosperous nation”

II. Blatant Hypocrisy 

The LNC's repudiation isn't just incorrect, it's a shocking betrayal, exposed by their own selective enforcement. They invoked the Statement of Principles to smear former Chair Angela McArdle in discussions surrounding the underlying events of the SIC report, accusing her of fraud and misrepresentation. But now that the tables have turned and they face scrutiny, they claim those same principles don't apply to their actions. This double standard reeks of ulterior motives, not principle. 

Let's confront the glaring questions raised by Appellant Hector Roos head-on (the ones the LNC conveniently ignores) to finally reveal the truth:

Why the Stark Contradiction? The independent financial audit (conducted by expert accountants) found zero evidence of mismanagement or fraud, which directly contradicts SIC's allegations. It appears the SIC had the exact same data, but twisted it to fit their narrative. Why? 

Why Float an Unauthorized Penalty? The SIC dangled a lifetime ban on McArdle, even though LNC counsel admitted in open session that no such power exists. Why advance it at all? This directly violates our non-aggression principle and sets a precedent for arbitrary, unauthorized punishments.

Are we Going to Address the Secret Communications? Emails between Chair Steven Nekhaila and former Chair Nicholas Sarwark expose their premeditated plot to bar McArdle long before the SIC report was completed. If true, this premeditation screams fraud and betrayal, directly assaulting the honesty our Statement demands. Allowing it to stand would normalize backroom deals, shattering our party's moral spine and accelerating its decline into corruption.

Why the Sudden Reversal on Freedom Calls? For a full year, Freedom Calls was an approved LNC vendor, with payments transparently reported monthly to the board, available on request, and filed with the FEC. No alarms were raised until it suited the “Factionless” cohorts. Why claim otherwise now?

From Section Four of our Platform:

“In every matter, we advocate the consistent application of the principle of the non-initiation of coercion, physical force, or fraud.”

The LNC's silence on these damning facts and subsequent rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me response is inexcusable. They warn that enforcing principles against unintentional misstatements could be “dangerous”. If misrepresentations get a pass, our party loses its very definition, and we become just another echo chamber of half-truths. 

III. Catastrophe Awaits If We Abandon Our Principles—The Party's Survival Hangs in the Balance

Dismissing our Statement of Principles as non-binding is a death knell to the Party. Our party has been in freefall because LP leaders have strayed from their roots. They’re prioritizing politicized power plays over liberty. 

Imagine an LNC unbound by non-aggression, free to betray the principles we claim to uphold. We'd become indistinguishable from the Democrats and Republicans and doom ourselves to perpetual obscurity.

The Judicial Committee has the power to review and reject actions that violate our bylaws. Grant this appeal, void the resolutions, and declare our principles binding. Restore the "Party of Principle" before it's too late. Failure in this matter invites total collapse: alienated affiliates, fleeing members, and a legacy of betrayal. For the sake of our party's soul, rule for the Appellants, reaffirm our bedrock Statement, and avert the catastrophe of a principle-free future. The Libertarian Party must stand on its commitment to radical truth.

We demand better. We deserve the liberty we preach.

Respectfully submitted on the nineteenth day of September, 2025, 

Abbra Green, Libertarian Party of Hawaii Secretary

Contact: lphisecretary@gmail.com 

You can read the other Amicus Brief submitted by parliamentarian Jonathan Jacobs on Lpedia.