Last updated on July 31, 2025
Third Party Watch has learned from an unimpeachable source that Austin Martin, Hector Roos, and others have prepared three appeals to the LNC Judicial Committee.
The first was sent to the Judicial Committee on [Ed.: July] 21. The other two are to be submitted. [Ed. The second has apparently also been submitted.]
Appeal One discusses LNC actions held to be improper, and motions that were not properly noticed. Appeal Two proposes that motions adopting the Special Investigatory Committee report were invalid as violations of the Statement of Principles. Appeal Three asserts that actions of the Chair that claimed to invalidate the election of James Wiley as Region One Alternate were invalid.
National Members and 2024 National Convention delegates were invited to sign any or all of the three appeals. We gather that Appeal One has the signatures of 150 National Members and 108 delegates from 2024; either number is adequate to put an appeal on the Judicial Committee’s docket. The other two appeals also have enough signatures.
Addendum: Hector Roos supplies us with a more detailed summary of the three appeals:
The third appeal yet to be submitted challenges the manner or the lack thereof for how the LNC strips membership rights away without a guiding bylaws standard or regular practice in handling the suspension of member rights for failure to maintain current with membership dues. Without such a practice in place, Robert’s Rules provides for a significant grace period before the membership rights are suspended for lapsed dues. At the early in-person meeting in Michigan, Region 1 Alternate Austin Martin challenged the chair’s decision to void the Region 1 election of James Wiley as second Region 1 alternative for lapsed dues because Robert’s Rules provides for a greater grace period for membership renewal than the chair provided and the chair is not authorized to nullify the Region 1 election under the circumstances. The chair’s decision was sustained over Mr. Martin’s point of order.
APPEAL ONE
The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) met for a special meeting via Zoom on June 9, 2025 to consider a 160+ page report (formatted to a compact 94 pages in its final version) by a Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) appointed “to investigate issues of conflict of interest and business practices of the Libertarian National Committee”. Almost the entirety of the SIC report is a copy and paste of disputed and unverified claims by Jake Porter that was published in January. The SIC report did include new evidence in the form of a performance audit of call center records that was exculpatory of the allegations presented and otherwise evades explaining how the LNC allowed supposedly-violative behavior to continue for at least a year; suggesting that actions discussed in the SIC report were instead legitimately authorized.
FACT CHECK: A detailed review of the SIC report shows how facts presented not only contradict the allegations but support an opposite conclusion.
Discussion and debate of the SIC report were severely limited. LNC members were provided a copy of the lengthy SIC report by email less than 24 hours before the meeting while discussion of the report held in Executive Session was limited to two-minutes for each member. After leaving Executive Session, further discussion was prohibited and only a vote on the motion to adopt the SIC report was in order. Additional motions which were not provided with previous notice were moved and the chair declared that no debate could take place since they were related to the earlier Executive Session discussion.
These motions beyond the motion to adopt the SIC report were in violation of the Bylaws in, at a minimum, the followings areas:
A. Motions unrelated to the adoption of the SIC report were new business requiring prior notice of at least five (5) days with the complete language of the motion provided to the LNC.
B. Motions purporting to limit a bylaw-created right of membership are invalid. The LNC cannot “deem” someone as “unfit” to ban that person from being appointed to fill a vacancy on the LNC since the only requirement for someone to serve is to be a sustaining LP member.
APPEAL TWO
The Libertarian Party Bylaws explicitly incorporate the Statement of Principles (SoP) in Article 3, requiring the Party to support measures consistent with those principles and oppose those that conflict with them.
By adopting SIC report discussed above that presents disputed or unproven conclusions as established facts, the LNC has engaged in misrepresentation, violating both the SoP and the Bylaws that enforce it. This is not a minor procedural error, it is a fundamental ethical breach.
The Judicial Committee has recognized such violations. In Epstein v. LNC (2015), it held that actions contrary to the SoP such as subjugating affiliates to state control are invalid. In other words, Party actions must align with the SoP, not just procedural rules.
Just as in Epstein, the LNC’s action here conflicts with core Party principles. The Judicial Committee should therefore void the adoption of the report as a violation of the Statement of Principles and the Bylaws.
The adoption of the SIC report by the LNC was in violation of the Bylaws in, at a minimum, the followings areas:
A. Because the SIC report presents disputed or unproven conclusions as established facts, the LNC has engaged in misrepresentation, violating both the SoP and the Bylaws that enforce it.
APPEAL THREE
The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) met in person on the weekend May 17-18, 2025 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Austin Martin, Region 1 Alternate (First) raised a point of order regarding the invalidation of the election of James Wiley as Region 1 Alternate (Second). While Mr. Wiley’s sustaining membership was lapsed for failure of payment at the time of election, the LP Bylaws do not authorize the LNC Chair or Secretary to create an ad hoc procedure to unilaterally invalidate a region election based on sustaining membership status. If an enforcement mechanism was provided by the rules to invalidate a region election, then they were not followed by the Chair or Secretary in this situation. Furthermore, Mr. Wiley rectified the alleged deficiency by making an immediate $25 donation to update his sustaining membership status which could have cured the issue. Chair Nekhaila ruled the point of order not well-taken and the subsequent appeal of the ruling of the chair was sustained.
The question of whether the LNC Chair or Secretary have the discretion to recognize the Region Representative or Alternate has come up various times over the years. Past controversies include the deciding vote for the 2022 suspension of the LNC Secretary when the Chair recognized an alternate in the room without the express authorization from the Region Representative. Then more recently during the February 2, 2025 LNC meeting on Zoom when Region 1 chairs attempted to replace their Region Representative but were prevented by a ruling of the chair. In other words, without a proper procedure in place, the arbitrary recognition of a Region Representative or Alternate by the Chair or Secretary has been used in political gamesmanship to affect LNC business.
The LNC’s action to invalidate the Region 1 election of James Wiley as Region 1 Alternate (Second) was in violation of the Bylaws in, at a minimum, the followings areas:
A. The Chair or Secretary are not authorized to invalidate the election of a region representative or alternate.
B. If the Chair or Secretary are authorized to invalidate the region election of a region representative or alternate, they are not authorized to create an ad hoc procedure to do so.
C. The Chair or Secretary do not have the discretion to determine when to receive a replacement region representative or alternate, even during an LNC meeting. These appeals are based upon the above decisions being violative of multiple Bylaws including, but not limited to, Article 16.
For all appeals, additional bylaws violations may be included in the Petition(s) and subsequent filing(s). My consent will remain valid even if some of the violations are purportedly cured after the solicitation for signatories to this appeal and extends to problems with any alleged cure or proceeds on remaining violations if purported cure is satisfactory to the Petition organizers. I understand that the appeals may be argued by other than the primary appellant as agreed upon by the primary appellant.
[Editor: We thank Jonathan Jacobs for a correction and an addition as reported above.]
…and THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why it will be impossible for National to get any of the money back that she stole off with.
If the LNC knew how poorly written their report was then its clear the LNC had no intention from the beginning to try and recoup money lost or stolen. Seems like finding someone to blame for their failure was the goal.
This is the first time I hear that the LNC and affiliates that are required to adopt the Statement of Principles and are bound to them as a moral standard. Is this a well-known fact?
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by governments in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
Under the 2024 Libertarian Party Bylaws, the LNC cannot seat a member whose dues are expired as a member of the National Committee or as an officer. Article 4, Section 2 explicitly requires that only sustaining members with current dues may hold Party office or serve on the National Committee.
There is no provision allowing the LNC to bypass this requirement and RONR is quite clear that precedent is only applicable in areas where the bylaws are ambigious. I understand that people have been allowed to ignore this requirement, but those votes are the votes that would win an appeal to the JC.
The argument is precisely that the membership rights were not suspended but instead in the grace period provided under RONR. There is no provision in bylaws or other rules providing for the automatic suspension of membership rights for lapsed dues. The actions by the LNC violated the RONR standard which is the only standard in the bylaws.
But did the LNC actual suspend any rights, or were they expressing a non-binding opinion?
Yes, Dr. Phillies, the action of the LNC to support the chair’s decision effectively suspended Mr. Wiley’s membership rights even though he had paid his renewal.
Like in the Wrights case, the Secretary told the chair that the membership was “suspended” for lapsed dues and then the chair acted on that information by rejecting the Region 1 election as void for electing someone who was not qualified under the bylaws. The chair then said the fix was to renew by paying the $25 dues and holding a new election. At the in-person meeting, Austin Martin stated that the renewal dues were paid and the election should be recognized. The chair continued to respect Mr. Wiley’s election and the LNC supported the decision after a point of order by Mr. Martin.
Yes, Dr. Phillies, the action of the LNC to support the chair’s decision effectively suspended Mr. Wiley’s membership rights even though he had paid his renewal.
Like in the Wrights case, the Secretary told the chair that the membership was “suspended” for lapsed dues and then the chair acted on that information by rejecting the Region 1 election as void for electing someone who was not qualified under the bylaws. The chair then said the fix was to renew by paying the $25 dues and holding a new election. At the in-person meeting, Austin Martin stated that the renewal dues were paid and the election should be recognized. The chair continued to reject Mr. Wiley’s election and the LNC supported the decision after a point of order by Mr. Martin.
Were you talking about Wiley or McArdle in your comment? Now I see your point.
Try again and get your facts straight.
At the time of appointment, Wiley was not eligible for appointment because he was not a national sustaining member, thus invalidating the appointment. After that in-person meeting where it was disclosed, he paid the dues and was properly reappointed, making the appeal moot. Martin provided no proof of his statements and the Nekhalia correctly instructed staff to check it, and in the meantime he was ineligible.
In contrast, Wrights was a member whose membership had lapsed while on the LNC and *was not informed of the expiration* and was unilaterally booted, then his renew was paid by someone else, but the claim was that didn’t count, and the Judicial Committee rejected that argument.
Go to Lpedia and read up on the Wrights case.
But if it is discovered that dues were due, and the person pays the dues that he may well have thought were not overdue, all should be well.
This petition already has over 150 signers. Not a small number of support.
Anyone who was a 2024 national convention delegate or a current LP sustaining member can sign on to the petition.
Petition Sign Up: https://bit.ly/AppealSICReport
Angela McArdle and her baby’s father embezzled money from the LNC.
I am not sure why you’re trying to protect her, but…here we are.
These appeals are lacking.
You can believe a poorly constructed report that has its own factual and ethical lapses or you can believe that whatever actually happened was under the consent of the LNC. You’re welcome to your opinion to call it all “embezzlement” but the LNC cannot under the bylaws without misrepresentating the facts available.
It’s your opinion the report is “poorly constructed”, contained “factual and ethical lapses”, and was “misrepresenting the facts”.
Many disagree, perhaps most.
McArdle never should have been able to hire Padgett in the 1st place.
And she did it without consulting the entire LNC.
No other non-profit board in this country would allow nepotism of that sort.
Her claims only he could do the job was pure BS only an idiot would believe.
We’ll see what JC does.
I doubt your appeals will be successful.
But let the process play out.
The LNC voted twice to approve contracts with Padgett.
Part of the problem with the SIC report is that there is no explanation offerred why activities related to Freedom Calls LLC, that went on for a year, didn’t have the consent of the LNC. In fact, there’s no alternative conclusions considered in the report. It was all the worst possible scenarios.
However, the LNC has consented like this in the past such as when McArdle took over the role of Executive Director and the LNC consented (no vote was taken) due to the fiscal emergency.
Would you care to point to a statute that says that, because the one the SIC cited does not? That is part of the problem.
The LNC was consulted on the Padgett contract after the fact.
McArdle hired him without consulting the LNC and no vote was taken on his initial contract. The LNC eventually voted on a short term contract. She made comments that only he was capable of doing the job.
Complete nonsense.
That’s my recollection. anyway.
I sent multiple emails to LNC regarding McArdle’s inappropriate and unethical nepotism hire. This would be completely unacceptable to any other board in the country, but LNC is incompetent as a body, so here we are.
I let my membership lapse due to this, but rejoined when Chase was nominated.