Recent tweet storm:
Now the unprincipled Libertarian Party is considering wasting its dwindling and scarce funds using illegitimate IP (trademark) law (which is opposed by its Platform Plant 2.1—authored by yours truly in 2022) to attempt to censor free speech and stop free publicity by filing a… pic.twitter.com/aEbHYTKrMA
— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) September 11, 2026
New Mexico trademark:
- News and Rumors on the LNC-LPNM Litigation
- Statement of Alicia Dearn on the LPNM-LNC Lawsuit
- LNC Gains Preliminary Injunction in New Mexico
- Filings in the New Mexico Litigation, LNC v LPNM
- Thompson vs. McMahon on LNC Public re: LPNM
- Interesting Asides to the LNC-LPNM Litigation
- FW: Recent New Mexico Trademark Documents Filed (June 10, 2026)
- FW: New Mexico Preliminary Judgement Order (June 18, 2026): Grok: “A federal judge in New Mexico has granted the Libertarian National Committee a preliminary injunction against the Libertarian Party of New Mexico and several of its leaders. In a June 17, 2026 order, U.S. District Judge Margaret Strickland ruled that the LPNM can no longer use the federally registered “LIBERTARIAN PARTY” trademark — including the name “Libertarian Party of New Mexico” — while the trademark infringement lawsuit is pending. The court found the LNC is likely to succeed on the merits, citing strong evidence of actual confusion among voters, donors, and members, plus the LPNM’s continued use of the mark after disaffiliating in 2022. The LPNM must rebrand and remove the name from its materials, while the LNC must post a $20,000 bond. Candidates may still run as independents or under other parties.”
This is great: https://t.co/SsLXFscWJO people are scamming trademark registration applicants. This is good: anyone seeing a state monopoly should be fleeced and punished as much as possible. Someone should do this to the evil, unprincipled, statist Libertarian Party…
— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) July 11, 2026
FW: New Mexico Preliminary Judgement Orderhttps://t.co/y2s9Ee3IDi
https://t.co/dPxEPsjFLZ
“Party of Principle”. Sad. Grok summary: “A federal judge in New Mexico has granted the Libertarian National Committee a preliminary injunction against the Libertarian Party of New Mexico…— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) June 18, 2026
Note: LPNM Platform does not oppose IP.
LNC kicks out LPNH (May 2026)
- LPNH Notified of Its Disaffiliation
- Court documents in the LNC-LPNM litigation
- LP Judicial Committee Fills Its Ranks
- Court documents in the LNC-LPNM litigation
Libertarian Party Statement on the Disaffiliation of LPNH Posted on 05/27/2026 By TownUnderground
All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…
— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025
it’s especially funny that the LP is threatening a trademark lawsuit against LPNH… in violation of their own platform https://t.co/RqB0nsHnji pic.twitter.com/bxKGyqe9Dc
— Jeremy Kauffman 🦔🌲🌕 (@jeremykauffman) May 26, 2026
Ahem
This literally goes against stated libertarian policy that IP rights are not to be respected.
You’re literally betraying core LP ideals.https://t.co/dU3sEyMpAY— Marxon (@Marxon1134x) May 27, 2026
There were a bunch of “purist” libertarians who went apeshit about the LP-RJK joint fundraising thing–claiming the LNC action violated the bylaws since it went against libertarian principles, which was a dubious argument (see decision below). However, the Platform clearly…
— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) May 27, 2026
In about a month’s time when the LNC is pursuing legal action on the basis of trademark law against @LPNH, I expect to receive apology letters from all of you.
— LiquidZulu, most consistent mofo you know (@liquid2ulu) May 27, 2026
As an addendum to this, I am imploring people to actually read LP National’s statement with respect to the disaffiliation of the LPNH.
What you will notice is that the disaffiliation is inextricably tied to the enforcement of LP National’s intellectual property claim over their…
— MonHop 👑 (@MonarchoHoppean) May 28, 2026
While the pursuit of absolute adherence to the non-aggression principle is of course fundamental to the libertarian movement, what is also necessary and foundational to our success is the ability to be wrong.
I disagreed with @liquid2ulu (aka @Not_LiquidZulu) for his take about… pic.twitter.com/m9fByctr6W
— MonHop 👑 (@MonarchoHoppean) May 28, 2026
FW: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review (May 28, 2026)
From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l…@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 6:10:58 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p…@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi…@lp.org>
Subject: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board ReviewDear Chair McMahon,
I am writing to you this afternoon to formally request that you, along with counsel, immediately pause any forward momentum, new filings, or escalations (subject to mandatory court-ordered deadlines) regarding all pending trademark lawsuits currently involving the Libertarian National Committee—specifically including, but not limited to, the ongoing litigation in New Mexico and Michigan.
To be clear, this communication is not a formal motion, nor is it intended to spark a protracted debate via email ballot. Instead, I am raising this as a matter analogous to a point of personal privilege—or more accurately, a point of privilege for the entire assembly.
As a newly elected body, many of our regional representatives, officers, and at-large members have inherited complex, high-stakes legal battles that we had absolutely no voice in initiating, voting upon, or strategizing. Because the LNC bears the ultimate financial and fiduciary responsibility for these actions, we are collectively exposed to the consequences of decisions made by a previous board.
It is a matter of basic fairness and institutional privilege that the newly elected members of this committee be allowed a reasonable window to review the case files, consult with counsel, and fully familiarize themselves with the underlying issues, risks, and expenditures before any further binding steps are taken. I do request time for Executive Session to review with counsel at our next meeting on June 6.
Taking a brief operational pause to allow for a comprehensive onboarding regarding our legal portfolio will ensure that any future actions taken by the LNC are unified, well-informed, and truly reflective of the current committee’s direction. Many of us not on the previous LNC have not been personally invested in or attached to the conflicts but have heard from long time members about the harm they are doing to donors and local parties.
I request that you confirm receipt of this notice and advise the committee on the status of a temporary stay on these legal actions until a proper briefing can be conducted for the full board. I would like this body to ultimately decide whether we continue these lawsuits or not. Personally, I’d like to discuss other options involving the trademark, including a variety of resolution strategies.
Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Chair and I look forward to your prompt response.
Related
- LP Platform
- Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform
- Recent Trademark litigation emails from the LNC Public List
All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…
— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025
Follow Us!