Third Party Watch is the recipient of an interesting series of email exchanges. Our source, closely connected to the LNC Executive Committee, preferred to remain anonymous.
Our sources assert: The first of these messages was sent on Monday to the four officers of the LNC. There was no public response or any publically-seen discussion.
Our sources assert: During the derivative suits, Angela McArdle filed multiple motions to dismiss, which were all denied. After she resigned and evidence of embezzlement was presented by Jake Porter, a new law firm entered an appearance on behalf of the LNC, recognizing that it would be a conflict of interest for the LNC to be represented by the same law firm trying to defend the Chair who had embezzled from the organization. In spite of all of that, Oliver Hall announced on Sunday, August 10 that the LNC had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against McArdle, shielding her from legal accountability.
Our sources assert: To our knowledge, the Libertarian National Committee was not informed in advance of this decision to take Angela McArdle’s side and help her get away with serious misconduct that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to Libertarian Party finances.
Our sources assert: Word has also come out that serious neglect of the vacant headquarters building resulted in severe damage to the interior of the building from a roof leak that went undetected. The members of the Libertarian Party were harmed by Angela McArdle. Her replacement as Chair seems to be trying to help her get away with it.
Third Party Watch does not believe the claim of Chair Nekhaila (see Message #3) that the LNC resolution against McArdle renders her legally unable to serve.
Message#1:
From: Nicholas Sarwark <nicholas@sarwark.org>
Date: August 11, 2025 at 8:20:31 AM PDT
To: treasurer@lp.org, vicechair@lp.org, secretary@lp.org, chair@lp.org
[Editor: This message has since been sent to the entire LNC.]
Subject: Resuming Settlement Discussion re: Vest v. McArdle
Dear Officers of the Libertarian National Committee,
Earlier this year I spoke with some of you about the need to hold Angela McArdle legally accountable for her misconduct using donor funds and fraud to conceal embezzlement of donor funds. There were some positive discussions about settling the derivative lawsuit brought by Beth Vest, with the most efficient path to seeking damages being amending the complaint to substitute the LNC in for Vest as a party with greater standing to pursue damages, using the vehicle of the existing lawsuit that has already survived motions to dismiss and reconsider brought by Angela McArdle.
Picking up the existing case and amending the complaint to seek damages is something the LNC should do, not just to relieve a former member of the LNC of the great personal expense in aid of the LNC’s interests and rights. Rather, it has become clear that the LNC should assume the proper role as lead plaintiff in the existing action, now that the LNC has confirmed explicit and shocking evidence of misconduct by the Party’s chief executive.
Shortly before that report was released, settlement discussions were proceeding toward a positive outcome that would
. give the LNC a vehicle to hold McArdle legally responsible,
. relieve the derivative plaintiff Vest (now that the LNC had recognized that McArdle’s misconduct and damages warrant direct legal action, and
. allow the many former LNC members and donors who would not support the LNC financially while it was defending Angela McArdle from legal responsibility to start supporting the LNC again.
We all agreed that letting the LNC take the baton from Vest – the litigation burden and the litigation control – would send the best signal to donors that there is a new direction.
Surprisingly in the report that was released, there were some statements about NOT wanting to pursue legal action against Angela McArdle, due to its alleged expense for the LNC at the present time. Such statements were surprising, and apparently presaged a position in favor of letting Angela McArdle continue to evade legal responsibility for the damage that she caused and, to some extent, continues to cause now.
After the report, we learned that the LNC had reversed its previous settlement position and that there was no interest in substituting in the LNC for Vest and in pursuing McArdle. We received no explanation for this apparent 180, and it doesn’t appear there was ever any LNC meeting to discuss the pros and cons of settlement – which left us guessing as to what changed.
Some have claimed it was because the LNC “didn’t have enough money to pay for a lawsuit” and that the LNC couldn’t afford to make a large upfront payment for Vest’s accrued legal fees. If that was the reason, there are now some good reasons to reconsider that position.
Everyone recognizes that the LNC defending Angela McArdle to this point has caused donations to dry up, and that the LNC doesn’t have any money in the bank to make an initial settlement payment. Acknowledging that immediate concern, Vest and the Veritas firm are amenable to a settlement that doesn’t have any initial payment of fees now. We believe that previous supporters of the Vest lawsuit would direct future donations to the LNC Legal Fund – once the LNC is substituted in as a plaintiff in a direct action.
Simply, donors need to see that the LNC is no longer defending McArdle by trying to dismiss the only legal action against her. If the LNC takes the place of Vest in the litigation, the LNC will then be able to raise enough money into the Legal Fund to pursue the existing lawsuit as a direct action to a full legal resolution. Efforts to dismiss the lawsuit could be seen as helping Angela McArdle evade legal accountability, and result in even more donors losing confidence in the LNC – perversely, damaging the LNC’s financial position in the short and medium term.
It would be good to have a phone conversation early this week to get a sense of the position of the current officers of the LNC about the possibilities of settlement and to address any concerns you might have about getting this done.
Yours truly,
Nick
—————–
Message #2
[Editor: The following is the message noted above, sending the August 11 message to the entire LNC, and we are also grateful to friends on the LNC for whatever they told us.]
From: Nicholas Sarwark <nicholas@sarwark.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2025 8:49:59 AM
To: Entire LNC <entire.lnc@lp.org>
Subject: Fwd: Resuming Settlement Discussion re: Vest v. McArdle
Dear Members of the LNC,
Below [Editor: It’s Message #1 above, not below] is a message sent to the officers of the LNC at the beginning of this week regarding settlement discussions to resolve the derivative lawsuit and hold Angela McArdle legally accountable.
The choice whether to help Angela McArdle evade justice or whether to pursue restitution through legal action is the responsibility of the entire Libertarian National Committee to consider as part of the fiduciary duty of oversight.
Yours in Liberty,
Nicholas Sarwark
————
Message #3
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Date: August 16, 2025 at 8:19:25 AM PDT [Ed: 11:19 AM EDT]
To: Nicholas Sarwark <nicholas@sarwark.org>, Entire LNC <entire.lnc@lp.org>, oliverbhall <oliverbhall@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Resuming Settlement Discussion re: Vest v. McArdle
Hello Nick,
I am cc’ing @oliverbhall, our counsel.
I want to address a few of the items you’ve brought up to the full board to paint the full picture.
We had met earlier this year in order to discuss a potential settlement of the case, your prescribed terms were for the LNC to pay a large portion of Ms. Vests legal fees to adopt the case and pursue McArdle.
We had felt that all the goals of Ms. Vest had apparently been achieved, namely 1) McArdle is no longer Chair as she resigned and 2) the body has made a resolution that McArdle is unfit to serve as an officer thereby satisfying denial of any future position, she me seek on the board.
From our perspective, the goal of the derivative suit is to the benefit the organization, paying Ms. Vests legal fees and adopting a derivative suit does not benefit the organization. Furthermore, there are substantial legal and financial considerations.
I, nor the LNC, had ever committed to taking up your offer. Furthermore, the LNC has done its duty in completing an independent and thorough investigation of McArdle’s actions as showcased in the Special Investigatory Committee report.
If anything changes, we will be in touch through counsel.
Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC
I think Steve’s Email number 3 was sloppily, but that’s up to Steve to clarify which I’m sure will happen by Steve or McGee in the JC hearing. I am fairly certain I know what he meant, but I’m not the one to ‘splain his bad writing.
I don’t have an opinion on whether switching in as plaintiff in Ms. Vest’s suit is the best way for the LNC to start re-establishing credibility with donors by holding accountable bad actors who fraudulently use the party as their personal piggy bank.
But unless the LNC does SOMETHING to demonstrate that it will pursue, rather than protect, crooks like McArdle who steal from the party and its donors, those donors are unlikely to return.
“the body has made a resolution that McArdle is unfit to serve as an officer thereby satisfying denial of any future position, she me seek on the board.”
This resolution will not prevent future delegates from electing Ms McArdle to the LNC, and likely will not prevent a future LNC from appointing her to a vacancy.
Daryl you are correct, and Steve was just super sloppy here.
I believe that Third Party Watch is correct when it says: “Third Party Watch does not believe the claim of Chair Nekhaila (see Message #3) that the LNC resolution against McArdle renders her legally unable to serve.”
Between the failure to go after her and the open Neo-Nazi infiltration of NH, I’m grateful to be off that body. FFS Steve, you are screwing the pooch.
Hope Adrian was worth it for you.
We must openly seek justice against apparent corruption and self-dealing or we’ll never be taken seriously for calling out corruption and self-dealing by those on government and their patrons.
The Party of Principle is no such thing if lie down when it’s something that’s embarrassing us.
Donors will not come back until this lawsuit is taken to its conclusion, whatever the outcome may be. The LNC can choose to be a body that recognizes the fiduciary duty to its members, or it can mimic the Swamp’s dealing with the Epstein files to shield selected people from transparency and accountability.
I’m an old fuck and have about 45 years in as a member of the LP. I’ve put in time as a candidate and got fired from a job because of my beliefs. I’ve testified at legislative hearings, collected signatures for petitions, was a news letter editor for 4 years, put in about 500 or more hours behind booths, and spent over $1,000 on banners, bumper stickers, and printed material for the LP. I want the LP to go after her and every penny they can get to set an example for anyone who thinks they plan on coming into the LP and screwing the party over. I have been an LP member in 3 states and seen similar crap happen in 2 of the states. Let the potential collaborates, or quislings know we won’t put up with their games. Nail this down!
I will never give LP money again if they don’t go after her.
First voted LP for Harry Browne in 2000.
I first voted for Roger MacBride.
I commend you NewFederalist for your early action. I first voted Libertarian for Ed Clark although I noticed Roger MacBride and mentioned him to older members of the Staunton Republican Committee. They did not want to talk about him.