LNC Dispute Continues — Nekhaila Will Seek Censure of Martin

Last updated on August 14, 2025

Note that the first of the following messages predates the Martin-Nekhaila dispute we reported on yesterday. We close with Nekhaila’s message announcing he will seek censure of Martin.

From: Matt Johnson <matt.johnson@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 6:07:13 PM
To: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>; Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report

Jesus. If members of this board continue to breach not only executive session, but attorney client privilege between the LNC Counsel and the LNC, count me out among further executive session.

And now we reach today’s messages:

From: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 12:04:38 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Matt Johnson <matt.johnson@lp.org>; Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report

Aloha, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Hays,

Thank you for your concerns in maintaining confidentiality — I respect our shared commitment to upholding internal policies. To clarify, my actions did not breach the confidentiality policy, as no executive session details were revealed beyond what is already public from other sources (per Policy Manual §1.02.4). Additionally, under the code of conduct and whistleblower protections, good-faith disclosures of ethical concerns are exempt from retaliatory enforcement, especially after internal reports have been submitted and ignored.

Aloha, Mr. Nekhaila,
As requested, I will resubmit evidence of my prior complaints (I.e.: raised in executive session on June 9th with counsel present, associated written correspondence, and on other occasions). However, I must reiterate that the SIC’s conflicts of interest and lack of independence are evident and well-documented, including members with material benefits from the outcomes. These issues were known to the committee and could undermine the Party’s credibility if not addressed. My initial complaints originated from before the current policy was enacted, and have continued consistently thereafter in conformity to both our old and new conduct policies. I have already been very vocal about my concerns over the apparent conflicts of interest, including with counsel, which have not been addressed.

The glaringly-obvious misrepresentations of fact, in tandem with the above circumstances, would cause a person of ordinary wit and intelligence to conclude that some form of “fraud” or “deception” has occurred, or is occurring. Multiple individuals have been evidently working in concert in an unbroken pattern of errors and omissions, giving rise to the reasonable belief that collusion would exist.

I do not say this lightly.

I have waited patiently for meaningful responses to my complaints and reports, but none have been forthcoming. As an alternate representative, I lack the ability to bring motions directly, so I encourage a colleague to propose one to discharge the SIC — which would properly align with our fiduciary duties under DC Nonprofit Corporation Act § 29-406.30 to act in the Party’s best interests and avoid unreasonable reliance on conflicted processes.

A handful of individuals, including SIC members, had significant vested interests in the report’s subject matter and outcomes, raising serious appearances of impropriety, and giving rise to my offending social media comments. While I acknowledge my own perspective may not be entirely detached, it is far removed compared to those directly involved in the events. Given the irreversible policy changes and potential damages to the Party, investing in neutrality would have built greater member trust and confidence in the results.

The majority of the board appears conflicted here, and I believe an independent investigation would have been essential to protect our organization before more external scrutiny arises; instead we did something that, to the average person, appears terribly deceptive and morally wrong. Now you propose to officially censor my public speech to keep dirty secrets on the LNC? I’m afraid that after obtaining advice of counsel, I am simply unable to comply with your absurd and retaliatory request, Mr. Chair.

I raise this not out of animosity, but to fulfill my duty to represent my constituents and safeguard the LP’s reputation.

I am open to discussing this further or providing additional details to resolve the matter amicably.

Mahalo,
Austin Martin
R1

————

From: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 1:27:48 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>; Matt Johnson <matt.johnson@lp.org>; Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Cc: LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report

Howdy Mr. Martin,

As Chair of the Special Investigatory Committee and Executive Editor of the report, I take full responsibility—good or bad—for its contents.

First, could you clarify which specific conflicts of interest you believe apply to me? Likewise, I would appreciate details on what “material benefits from the outcomes” you are referring to, as my service on the LNC has cost me significantly in time, money, and even personal happiness—hardly a source of material gain.

Given that the core facts of the matter were publicly disclosed before any LNC member was aware, I’m unclear on what form of “fraud” or “deception” you believe occurred, especially since many of the details have been independently confirmed by others.

While we have had a lengthy phone conversation and I recognize that we disagreed on parts of the report, I was unaware you considered my responses “meaningless.”

Regarding your constituents, I have been contacted by several Region 1 state chairs who sought my assistance in addressing matters that had been neglected in communication from their Region Reps. I recommend speaking directly with those you represent to gain a clearer sense of their views and needs.

Respectfully,

Paul Darr
Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 2:29:07 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>; Matt Johnson <matt.johnson@lp.org>; Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>
Cc: LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report

Mr. Martin,

First off, you have never submitted a documented complaint to the Chair, Vice Chair, or Counsel under our internal process or whistleblower policy. Saying you “raised concerns” is not the same as filing a complaint with evidence and a requested remedy.

Second off, whistleblower protections cover good-faith internal disclosures with supporting documentation. They do not immunize public accusations of “fraud,” “collusion,” or “deception,” nor leaks from confidential proceedings. Invoking fiduciary duty to justify public broadsides demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what fiduciary duty entails and your duties as a board member.

Third, executive session is confidential unless the Board releases it. The fact that outsiders talk about a topic does not waive your duty of confidentiality as an LNC member.

Fourth, you have accused SIC members of having “material benefits” and conflicted interests. You have provided no names, dates, transactions, documents, or governing standards tying any member to a concrete benefit. Aspersions are not evidence and will not stand.

Lastly, you are conflating censorship with censure. Censorship is suppression of speech. Censure is a formal accountability action for member misconduct under adopted policy. Enforcing PM §1.07.4(B)(I–II), requires members to abide by the rules they accepted when becoming members of this body, that includes restrictions on personal public facing communications that disparage this body or its actions. If you feel unable to abide by the policies of the organization you have voluntarily sought a leadership role in, I recommend you resign immediately.

You have stated you “are simply unable to comply.” Accordingly, I will notice a motion to censure at the next LNC meeting so the full Board can formally register its disapproval and set the record straight for members and donors. I attempted to resolve this privately. You elected to place it before the Board and the public forwarder; accordingly, we will address it where you have put it.

This thread is closed for argument. If you have evidence, follow the process above.

Confirm receipt.

Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee

There was also a final response from Mr. Chadderdon to Mr. Darr.