libertarian pragmatist

The LNC is suing Michigan Libertarians because nothing else has worked. The Michigan members still reject Chadderdon’s claims. However, there are other reasons why they are pursuing this lawsuit. In short, the LNC is weaponizing the state to stamp out every rival faction in the LP once and for all. 

NOTE: This is the last article in the series. To read an overview, read the first article here.

Before we get to the main lawsuit, there is one more to mention first. This other lawsuit is the reason why neither board presently has access to the bank account. 

The Bank Account Lawsuit

In mid-February, the rightful LEC met to appoint an acting treasurer, Angela Thornton. Mike Saliba and Joe Brundgart then went to the bank to add Thornton to the party’s account.

While at the bank, Saliba spoke with the bank manager. He expressed concern that someone claiming to be the LPMI chair might enter his bank. The bank manager assured Saliba that it would violate the bank’s policies to add anyone to the account without one of the other signatories on the account present. 

Later, however, Michigan members discovered that Chadderdon had gone to a different branch. There, he convinced the bank employees to hand the account over to him. Attorney Eric Doster had filed an update to the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) public filing system for nonprofits, updating LPMI’s leadership to match that of Chadderdon’s board. He then convinced the bank to violate its policies and, instead, use LARA as proof. 

LARA is an unbelievably insecure system, and the bank was reckless for using it.  A LARA representative told Saliba that, technically, someone could fill out a form, send a check for $30, and become the official chair of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. LARA does not verify this information. 

Additionally, Chadderton listed Norm Peterson as treasurer when he updated LARA. Peterson had, in fact, resigned back in November 2022. LPMI did not have an acting treasurer prior to the split.

Saliba’s board (then chaired by Brungardt) appointed Angela Thorton-Canny. Angela offered to be the treasurer for both groups until the dispute was resolved. As she pointed out at the time, it is illegal to spend or receive money without one. Chadderdon committed fraud by lying to the bank about lacking a treasurer. 

Saliba’s attorney sent a letter to the bank’s attorney, and Saliba continued to complain to the bank directly. Eventually, the bank decided to terminate its relationship with LPMI. The bank froze all of the accounts, but not before Chadderdon spent approximately $6,000. This was rumored to have paid for Eric Doster’s attorney fees. There is no way to know where this money actually went because this information was completely missing from the most recent annual filing, which was also filed late. 

The bank preempted a winnable lawsuit by Saliba’s group and filed an interpleader case with the court instead. An interpleader case happens when property must be transferred to its rightful owner, but more than one party claims ownership. Because the bank is clearly in breach of its contract, it is pursuing this case to protect itself from liability. 

Comerica has since been removed from the case entirely, and the funds currently sit in escrow while this case is still pending. Saliba’s attorney is so confident that he agreed to take no fee until they win the case. 

Even though it is likely a slam dunk for Saliba’s group, the interpleader case will not likely impact the trademark case.

That brings us to the big issue: the LNC’s trademark case. 

The Origin of the Trademark Case

On February 5, the LNC met in executive session to discuss various legal challenges among its affiliates, including Michigan. According to the minutes, the board took no action. Then, an email ballot appeared on March 27 following a motion by the LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos and a second by the Chair Angela McArdle.  

The LNC’s Executive Committee voted to authorize the filing of the trademark lawsuit, including a $10,000 allocation from the budget for legal fees. Only the Executive Committee, not the larger LNC board, voted on this matter. Voting concluded two days later. 

I cannot find any public discussion about this motion before its adoption. I’m not sure if the membership has any idea how many LNC members genuinely supported this lawsuit or if they were ever properly informed of all its potential outcomes. 

Then-chair, Joe Brunghadt, received a letter from McArdle on February 16, along with a cease-and-desist letter from attorney Eric Doster. The attorney representing Saliba’s group responded with a letter refuting the LNC’s claim. 

So much of this lawsuit’s origins are shrouded in secrecy, as is much of the action taken by this administration. The LNC voted to form a committee in December to continue managing this lawsuit, and the committee consists of the same people who were probably doing that anyway.

The Injunction

The LNC filed the lawsuit on May 5—more than a month after the April 1 dual conventions. The lawsuit contends that eight individuals have used the trademarked name “Libertarian Party” illegally. The reason the LNC chose these eight individuals is not clear but can be inferred from the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit named Mike Saliba, Rafael Wolf, Greg Stemfle, Jami Van Alstine, and Angela Thorton-Canny because they were the officers elected at the April 1 convention in Lansing. It also named Dave Canny and Mary Bazuma because they were each the chair of their respective affiliates when Chadderdon dissolved them. 

Joe Brungardt is no longer an officer. However, the lawsuit also names him because he received the cease-and-desist letter from the LNC’s attorney. None of the district reps were named at all.

The judge granted the LNC’s request for an injunction but required a $20,000 bond to enforce it. If the LNC loses, the party could be responsible for paying at least this much in damages. The hearing’s transcript is available here.

You can partially infer the judge’s attitude toward this case by this hearing.

Initially, the judge made it clear she had no interest or desire to get involved in settling the dispute over leadership. The defense argued, however, that they didn’t want the court to do that at all.

Instead, they expected the opposite. They wanted the judge to view the bylaws as the party’s contract with its members, making the dispute, therefore, an internal matter. 

More importantly, the defense argued that the relevant trademark law, the Lanham Act, does not cover noncommercial uses. They pointed out that, while other circuit courts have ruled in various ways, Michigan’s own Sixth Circuit has yet to decide on an interpretation of how trademark law affects political organizations.

For example, the judge countered that Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange (Ninth Circuit) says offering services as a political party counts as commerce. The plaintiff referenced two other cases: the United We Stand case in the Second Circuit and a district court case in the Virgin Islands, where the RNC sued a local affiliate. 

However, the Sixth Circuit also ruled on Taubman Co. v. Webfeats,  stating the Lanham Act doesn’t include noncommercial speech. There has yet to be a case in the Sixth Circuit that determined whether this applies to a political party. 

The Appeal 

In November, the First Amendment Clinic, a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance on free speech cases, filed an appellant brief in the Sixth Circuit Court on behalf of Saliba’s group. This appeal argues that the LNC’s trademark lawsuit constitutes an “unconstitutional attempt to silence political opponents through use of the Lanham Act.”

The legal brief points out that the plaintiff and defendants are not “commercial competitors” but rather members of the same organization. In particular, the injunction is effectively “stifling their political expression and violating their First Amendment rights” because they cannot even use the name of the party to which they belong. 

The appeal also treats the LP bylaws as a contract between the party leadership and its members. As such, the only way the LNC could revoke the permission of a member’s right to use the name is with a three-fourths vote to disaffiliate.

Finally, the appeal points out that the injunction constitutes court interference in a political party—something that the courts have historically frowned upon in cases like Heitmanis v Austin.

The Amicus Brief

If there was any doubt about how far from the mark the LNC’s case is, look no further than the amicus brief recently filed by law professors at various Ivy League schools.

Any “friend of the court,” who has reason to believe there are arguments and case law that the judge should hear, can file an amicus brief—sometimes on behalf of a third party directly impacted by the decision. 

In this case, the brief basically states neither side is arguing the case well. Crucially, though, the brief challenges the notion that political parties are commercial, therefore undermining the LNC’s whole argument.

Chadderdon’s group finally filed a response to this appeal on January 4. The response claimed that the amicus brief mischaracterized the stated facts in the appeal. The response spends a lot of time on the idea that the disclosure appearing on the website for Saliba’s group was insufficient to prevent confusion, essentially rehashing the same arguments made when the judge granted the injunction.

This response sounds a lot like, “Nuh-uh.” 

The response also catastrophizes about what might happen if Saliba’s argument is validated by the courts. It says, “Any competitor could set up an imposter organization at will…” It suggests, erroneously, that any opponent could deny ballot access to the LNC by setting up a rival organization with similar branding. 

This argument is false because election divisions have additional requirements for determining which parties have ballot access. The Federal Election Commission works similarly. Just because trademark law is not relevant doesn’t mean there are no mechanisms preventing imposter parties from forming. 

This lie is perhaps the biggest one underpinning the whole case. The idea that the trademark is the only thing protecting the Libertarian Party from identity theft or from outside saboteurs wanting to set up rival organizations is just nonsense. 

If the LNC wins, the likely result is far more dystopian. 

The RNC and DNC could use this precedent to entrench their established elites and stamp out any rival factions that pop up. Anyone with any bit of success anywhere in any party will soon find a rival faction that these overlords will choose instead. 

The LNC has made it clear that this is the plan. Any state that does not have a Mises-dominated leadership will create a splinter group with a feigned grievance. They will say they are the rightful owners of the party, and the LNC will recognize them, even if they are in the minority. They will do this in every state where they do not have control. 

This weaponization of trademark law will ultimately destroy the party and make it impossible for any other group ever to have control again. 

There is a lot more that I could go into, but I have addressed all the main points. 

We don’t have to guess about the true intentions of Mises Caucus leadership at this point. They have actually been very transparent.

SO NOW THEN…

Several current and former LPMI veterans, candidates, and former elected officials have signed an open letter defending Saliba’s group. There is a reason they are all supporting Saliba’s group.

Consider Saliba’s remarks during his chair report at the Lansing convention: 

“We have more people here, we have more former candidates here, we have more former chairs here, we have more former vice chairs here, we have more former secretaries here. We have more of the people who count here. The party belongs to those who show up and we are the ones who’ve been showing up consistently for the last fifty-some-odd years.”

The fact that more members showed up to his convention means he is right. They made their decision very clear. 

Let’s finish this series with a recap and see what bad faith really looks like. 

What Bad Faith Really Looks Like

Way back in May 2021, national Mises Pac Secretary David Hynes made a disturbing admission. He said that Mises is “…commandeering an institution which has already laid the groundwork in terms of things like branding and ballot access.” He also said the Mises Caucus is “teaching an extremely odious group of people a lesson…” 

Mises PAC founder Michael Heise has echoed this sentiment from the beginning. He famously encouraged members to go out and convince outsiders to “become LP members for one day” to win at convention. 

More recently, when a Michigan member asked in an LPMI group about possibly bringing both sides back together, Heise snapped back that this was not the desire. Instead, he wants the court case to set a precedent that would allow LNC to sue groups in other states. He aims to punish anyone that dissents.

Another brazen admission appeared in the LPMI JC’s response to Tim Yow’s appeal. When I learned about this, I viewed it as just more of the same. I figured it was not consequential enough to even include, but it really highlights how corrupt this all is. 

After the JC ruled that the July 9 convention was invalid, Yow pointed out in an appeal submitted March 3 that, per Chadderdon’s opening remarks at the convention, his resignation needed to be accepted. He argued that if everything that happened at convention was invalid, then his resignation also wasn’t accepted. 

The JC issued a quick rejection of this case, arguing that the acceptance of Yow’s resignation was “de facto and fully in effect” when Chadderdon brought it up at the convention. It’s a strange rebuttal, but the mean-spirited conclusion is even more telling. The rejection letter concludes with these words: 

“It is for these reasons that the Judicial Committee recommends that either the LEC or the delegate body at the regular convention vote to revoke Mr. Yow’s lifetime membership. Our society will continue to be plagued by bad faith actors if these people don’t face consequences for their actions.”

Does this sound like something any Judicial Committee anywhere should be writing? Does this sound fair?

The Mises Caucus and the LNC are sharpening their knives for New Mexico, Massachusetts, and likely others. Anyone anywhere who intends to assert and defend their member rights will have their heads chopped off in the public square. They are being very open about this. 

What is really going on

I even learned about certain respected people who attempted to step in and mediate but were threatened personally to back off. They are not willing to go on record, and I don’t blame them, so you can take that or leave it. It is happening, though.

Peace is not what they want. They want control.

This is why they will fail to give notice for agenda items and then claim their failure to provide notice is why it can’t be allowed. 

They will pay for interpretations of the rules that always favor their in-group, treating the rules like a conveniently labyrinthian maze that only they can navigate. All who question their interpretations are labeled bad actors and frauds. 

They won’t even communicate with their own board members if they are not part of the in-group. They will share information internally with caucus members weeks before telling everyone else. 

These corrupt leaders will use party assets to promote caucus events and resources (like they did in Colorado, for example) but then falsely accuse political opponents of misusing party assets when they circulate a petition for a special convention. 

They will shut down any debate that is not on their terms and even eject members from meetings if they assert their rights. They will ignore the opinions of parliamentarians who are not bought and paid for by them. 

And they are willing to disaffiliate entire thriving affiliates just because they feel threatened. 

Mass expulsions are coming, too. 

Members have already been expelled in several states, but the expulsions on the horizon for Michigan will be on another level. If the JC is bragging about expelling members they don’t like, it means that members who voice the wrong opinions will have no defense. 

All this ensures the general membership never gets a fair election ever again. It doesn’t matter that this is all the membership ever really wanted.

Member Abuse Continues

Some of the members of the Mises-controlled LPMI board were censured recently. They were accused of bad-mouthing LPMI and driving away members with repeated drama. Throughout the two hour special meeting (which you can watch here), these members were lied about and mischaracterized repeatedly. Numerous rules were broken. 

Several Mises-aligned board members unironically accused these two members of wasting everyone’s time with drama. At the same time, they were supporting a censure that was also a huge waste of time. 

In reality, the two censured members are among the most active and hard-working members that LPMI has. They just so happen to be building relationships with state legislators. In fact, they are working with veterans groups to revive Defend the Guard in the Michigan state legislature, which has been languishing in committee for years.

This kangaroo court resembles similar proceedings elsewhere in the party. In the Mises-controlled Libertarian Party of Colorado, for example, they censured a lifetime member. This member worked on three campaigns in 2022—including the highly visible CD8 race, where Dan Ward made national headlines. The thanks for her efforts was a censure because of comments she made to a reporter. This was all detailed in a video that you can watch here. 

All anyone needs to do to understand how authoritarian this board has been is to watch a single meeting. Any meeting. 

In one of the most recent meetings, a member inquired why the last treasurer filing was late, the member was scolded for lying. This seems like an easy enough thing to prove. According to Michigan’s public filing system, the last filing was due on January 31, but was filed on February 5. 

This member also asked about the missing $6,000 that was spent just before the Comerica accounts were frozen. The treasurer chose to ignore this question completely. Instead, the treasurer called this member a liar and was not corrected. It was the treasurer, though, who lied to the board and the members about filing late. 

I mention this example because they didn’t just lie—they actively rebuked the members bringing this up. Even though they are telling the truth, as they so often are, they are attacked and smeared. 

This culture starts at the top and it must stop. 

Chadderdon reserves the right to cut anyone off and take away their rights to speak at any time. No one is allowed to do the same to him or they will be muted or face removal. He says the person speaking is not allowed to lie, but refuses to allow them to defend themselves. Even Chadderdon’s own people routinely plead with him to not do this. Many good activists are unfairly maligned and driven away as a result. 

The Future

This case has the power to rip the party apart, and at least one side could not care less. It is clear now that only one thing will end this dispute. The LNC must back off and force Chadderdon to work with the members he is attempting to disenfranchise. 

If there is anything anyone should be doing about this, they should email their LNC representative and demand they drop the lawsuit. 

The only reason Chadderdon can refuse to work with the other side is because he doesn’t have to. He can rule with an iron fist because no one is around to stop him. Not even the members will be able to if they get kicked out. 

The only way to stop this is to make the LNC stop it. Barring this, it will go on, even if the LNC loses its lawsuit. Others on the LNC have indicated they still mean to recognize Chadderdon’s group anyway. 

And if they win, the purges will begin. They will happen everywhere. Then the LP will be truly lost for good. 

In the meantime, find your LNC Rep here. Let them know that Libertarians do not use the power of the state to go after other Libertarians. 

And if you want to contribute to the legal defense of the eight defendants, do that here.