Nekhaila Blocks Martin from LP.org Email List, Then Relents.

Mr. Nekhaila also called upon Mr. Martin to resign from the LNC.  An extended discussion followed, involving also Mr. Chadderdon, Mr. Bohler, and Mr. Wiley.

The discussion follows.  It is long.  In places, it is heated.

The Bylaws Justification for removing Mr. Martin from the email lists, is unclear.

From: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 2:07 PM
To: Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila
<steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entire.lnc@lp.org>; oliverbhall
<oliverbhall@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Resuming Settlement Discussion re: Vest v. McArdle

Aloha, Mr. Nekhaila,

This is a huge problem; it truly appears from the statements below that some
members and counsel have been (secretly?) meeting with opposing counsel,
concealing critical information from the board, and pursuing unauthorized
legal strategy which is not in the best interests of the LNC.

I have brought up substantial ethics concerns related to this matter through
the proper channels, and my complaints, (like many others’), were ignored
(or worse).

Mr. Hall, it also appears we are pursuing a secret legal strategy which no
one voted to adopt, and which involved a full-blown coup earlier this year;
one in which you apparently advised both sides.

The legal strategy issue is of great significance; the board apparently has not
authorized any of the actions which means they are most likely being
undertaken ultra vires.

The policy manual forbids this behavior, saying in relevant part:

“Once a lawsuit is filed or joined, including lawsuits filed against the Party or
the LNC, the Executive Committee shall manage the details of the lawsuit
subject to the budgetary instructions above. The Executive Committee may
delegate this task to an empowered Litigation Committee. The LNC shall
be kept advised of the progress and goals of the suit. Any settlement or
dismissal of the entire lawsuit recommended by the Executive Committee
must be approved by the LNC.”

It’s hard to overstate the profound significance and the appearance of
treachery that arises when we read statements like this one from our chair:

“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.”

Who is “we”? Sawark appears to be under the impression you made a
secret deal without the LNC, and then only fulfilled part of our alleged
obligations. Why weren’t we informed of this?

Can anyone explain what’s going on here?

I now must reiterate my earlier questions from my ethics complaint, which
were met previously with a shocking lack of candor. These questions are
addressed to counsel, but I welcome answers from any other members with
information on these points:

Have you had any discussions with external attorneys (i.e., those
representing Vest or other parties) or other individuals outside the LNC
regarding the SIC, the Vest suit, or related matters? If so, what was the
nature of those discussions, and did they begin prior to McArdle’s forced
resignation?

Do you know why Nick Sawark seemed under the impression that
board members and/or counsel had reversed our position on an alleged
agreement to join the Vest suit earlier this year?

Was this legal strategy for handling the Vest suit ever meaningfully
explained or discussed with all board members, and do you know if it was
ever approved by a vote of the LNC, per Policy Manual Section 1.02 on
approvals and transparency?

Did you ever advise Ms. Yeniscavich or Mr. Redpath to recuse
themselves from one or more of their roles in this process? Why or why
not?

Did you ever at any point consult with Angela McArdle about the
derivative suit(s), or the underlying matters, in any capacity that could
overlap with her alleged personal liability from any of the matters
investigated or included in the SIC?

What specific advice did you give to Angela McArdle just prior to her
resignation when she asked you about the threats she received?

Were you aware that Meredith Hays had an attorney-client relationship
with Angela McArdle?

Were you aware that Meredith Hays was making claims and inferences in
her capacity as an attorney to LNC members that dissenting members could
face federal charges or personal civil liability as a result of not supporting the
actions leading to McArdle’s resignation?

Did you advise any of the SIC members on conflicts of interest, recusal,
and the standards for an “independent committee”? If so, did you discuss
the potential impropriety of members voting to validate their own
investigative efforts, and the possible consequences of a lack of
independence, per LP Bylaws Article 7 and D.C. nonprofit law?

Did you advise members of the SIC and LNC on the propriety of
publication of this report, and how the potential risks associated with that
choice?

The lack of candor so far is stunning and indefensible. Full cooperation is a
fiduciary requirement. We have a right to able to make informed governance
decisions.

I demand full transparency. Please grant members of the LNC full access to
records of settlement negotiations, all records of internal discussions not
previously made available to LNC members, and all other withheld
correspondence with non-LNC members on this and related matters, within
three (3) business days.

Mahalo for your careful kokua and prompt responses to this matter.

Austin Martin
R1

—————————–
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 8:38:33 AM
To: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>; Meredith Hays
<meredith.hays@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entire.lnc@lp.org>; oliverbhall
<oliverbhall@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Resuming Settlement Discussion re: Vest v. McArdle

Mr. Martin,

Your accusations are noted. The LNC conducts business through motions,
votes, and established procedures, not through tirades. If you have a matter
to bring, do so properly, as I have mentioned several times already.

Be advised: further indecorous or harassing communications will subject you
to a motion to revoke your list privileges.

At this time, I am barring you from addressing Oliver Hall outside of formal
party business. Please respect this professional boundary, you can also
work through your primary representatives in R1.

If you disrespect this clear boundary, I will be forced to take remediative
action.

Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee

————————————————–
(The effective date of this message is unclear.  The following two screen shots came with the following message. )

Aloha!

This may be of public interest, and releasing this I believe to be in the best
interests of the LNC.

Shortly after this threat, with no other action taken on my part, the chair
unilaterally cut off my access to LP systems.

I will now be unable to participate any votes.

Mahalo!
Austin Martin

————————————————-

From: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Subject: Attorney misconduct concerns
To: oliverbhall <oliverbhall@gmail.com>
CC: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>, Hannah
Kennedy <hannah.kennedy@lp.org>, Employment Policy and
Compensation Committee <epcc@lp.org>, Rapid Reason
<rapidreason@gmail.com>

Aloha, Oliver Hall,

Credible allegations have emerged which obligate me by my fiduciary duty
in my capacity as a member of the LNC to demand that you immediately
supply me with a copy of your contract with the LNC, or a written
confirmation whether such a contract exists (in writing) without any delay.

Please provide the alleged contract within 48 hours.

Failure to do so will obligate me to take action to protect our organization.

Mahalo!
Austin Martin
R1

——————–
temp1

——————–
TEMP2

——————–
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 5:11:08 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia,
Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-
public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Hello All,

Tonight, I had a long and productive meeting with Mr. Martin, along with
Mr. Chadderdon, Mr. Darr, and Mr. Bohler.

We have made positive progress in an effort to descalate and better come
to understand each others positions, assuming good faith on both sides.

I want to thank Mr. Bohler for playing marriage counselor tonight.

I have directed staff to reinstate Mr. Martin’s email/Microsoft 365 privileges
and expect it to be completed as soon as staff is able.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC

———————–

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 5:39:30 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia,
Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; LNC Board
<lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Mr. Nekhaila,

While I acknowledge that we had a long conversation, I take issue with
your presentation of this discussion as giving any form of concession that
you have acted in good faith.

Mr. Martin and I participated in this call due to the fact that you have acted
outside of your authority to restrict his access to email.

He demanded restoration of his email access, and Austin offered
forgiveness to you and that he would forego a complaint to the JC if acted
upon promptly.

I specifically also raised that I continue to feel that your handling of the
ongoing matters related to our whistle blower complaint was not in good
faith and that I believe that you are acting to suppress the whistleblower
complaint and hide the responses behind an off-the-record veil of secrecy.
Those were your specific demands in the discussion. You asked for us to
muzzle ourselves in exchange for Mr Martin to have his basic access rights
as a member of the LNC.

Mr Martin and I specifically maintained our request that the Chair direct
LNC counsel to provide answers to our questions that have been raised
regarding our ongoing legal strategy.

I am sending this response only due to the fact that you have in my opinion
directly attempted to mischaracterize the exchange when sending to the
public list in a manner that will discredit the ongoing whistleblower concerns
that have been raised about your violations of duty, as raised in my motion
for censure. I still believe, as I stated clearly and repeatedly in the meeting,
you are not acting in good faith.

Andrew Chadderdon
Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

——————————–

From: James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 6:02:44 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia,
Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; LNC Board
<lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Chair Nekhaila,

This is good news.

Withdrawal of the retaliatory measures taken against my fellow regional alt
is a first step but still insufficient remedy. Compliance with Mr. Martins
request in full is still necessary.

Please forward the contract with the attorney for at your earliest
convenience. It’s subject matter is of particular interest to my region. If no
such contract exists please disclose this fact.

Thank you,

———————————————–

From: Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 12:26:47 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia,
Reykjavik
To: James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila
<steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-
public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Colleagues,

I would like to thank Mr. Martin, Mr. Chadderdon, Mr. Nekhaila, and Mr.
Darr for the late night discussion we had. It was stressful at times, but we
seemed to have made meaningful progress. We were able to restore Mr.
Martin’s email access while also reaffirming the importance of civility in our
communications. It may seem small, but it is actually a big deal and a win
for this entire board. It showed that even in contentious disagreements,
dialogue could help us move forward.

That is why I am disappointed to see the outcome of our discussion
reframed so quickly in adversarial terms. From where I’m sitting, both sides
acted in good faith. Chair Nekhaila committed to restoring email access,
and Mr. Martin committed to making a concerted effort at tempering his
tone in such a way as to not come off as hostile. Neither was asked to give
up rights, but both were asked to recommit to what we all should do:
exercise responsibility and care in communication, and also working hard to
keep this board functional.

To now call this retaliation mischaracterizes what occurred. I honestly don’t
see retaliation in Chair Nekhaila’s actions. Instead I see an effort, even if
not procedurally perfect in my opinion, to restore order in a difficult
situation. Casting it otherwise erodes the trust we just built together.

It also risks undermining Mr. Martin himself. He showed willingness to
pause, reflect, and move toward reconciliation. That was constructive, and
I thank him for that. If every agreement is immediately reframed in ways
that just further escalate the conflict, then the progress he made is thwarted
and becomes a loss for everyone on this board.

I’d hate for “no good deed goes unpunished” to be the operating principle of
this board. The win we had is important and should be protected, not
sabotaged. I implore you all to build on it rather than relitigating it in public
in ways that only sow more division.

Respectfully,
(Sam Bohler)
——————–

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 1:47:38 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia,
Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>; James Wiley
<james.wiley@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-
public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Mr. Chadderdon,

I hope that our conversation regarding protecting decorum, respecting the
time and dignity of staff, and working to get your questions answered
appropriately and within reasonable bounds does not fall on deaf ears.

To be clear, I did not acquiesce my position due to threats or forgiveness, I
am of the position that I have acted within my duty as Chair to retain
decorum and that privileges were suspended for that purpose. If you believe
what I did was wrong, submit it to the JC for an opinion. I restored access
out of grace and what I believe was mutual understanding, not threats.

Further, there is no pending whistle blower complaint, and as discussed, we
are assuming good faith on both sides.

To recap, commitment to decorum and proper process, respect of the
public forwarder, attempts at ensuring hostilities ease, and a mutual
agreement to satisfy you and Mr. Martin’s questions were discussed.

Hopefully, this conversation meant something, and we can move on in the
best interests of the LNC, despite impasses and differing opinions.

I will assume the above is true until proven otherwise.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC

—————-

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 4:40:58 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>; James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

The fact of the matter is that Mr Nekhaila’s Central concern was that it was no okay to question potential negligence by himself or by counsel.

He specifically drew that line – That questions of negligence are not appropriate to be raised

I will not abide by that.

I appreciate Mr Bohlers valiant attempts, which are ongoing and I will continue to engage with him, but the attempts to gaslight the public by Mr Nekhaila into believing anything other than the fact that he is trying to block investigation into his own potential misconduct by restricting access and barring conversations from occurring anywhere besides a setting in which he can employ his board majority to block conversation and hold secret the matters discussed under claimed penalty against the participants is unacceptable.

The ongoing attempt by him to misframe the discussions to give himself credit for undoing his violation of member rights will not be taken favorably or productively.

Andrew Chadderdon
Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

———————————–
From: Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 4:59:40 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Mr. Chadderdon,

I hear that you still have concerns about what has transpired before last nights’ call (everything from the beginning of the year) and displeasure with Steven’s phrasing. You can hold onto those sentiments while also acknowledging the progress made and protecting it. Mr. Martin’s email access was restored, and we should try and continue having these conversations so it is but the first of many wins we can have together. My concern is the continued framing of things in an adversarial way, with inflammatory language, is going to undo the good that came out of last night. I would like your questions to be properly addressed, and I think we can do that without further recriminations.

Respectfully,
Samuel Bohler

——————————–
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 5:06:58 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>; James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Mr. Chadderdon,

I disagree with what you believe are my motivations and feel you are jumping to conclusions which are fueling the types of behavior we spoke about.

You have been given several avenues to have your questions heard by council, one is during business, the other is setting up a call with Mr. Hall. You declined to take up my offer for a phone call with counsel, insisting on an email which I am not granting.

Despite you not talking up the phone call, I have insisted on setting up a time to have your questions answered before the body.

Your game theory of the board blocking attempts to have your questions answered is in my opinion misguided, it’s not appropriate to assume bad intent especially when efforts are currently underway to satisfy your requests.

My issues have always been on the grounds of decorum, process, and respect to staff. I understand there is no changing your mind on this no matter how many times I explain myself or attempt to accommodate your requests despite pushback.

I will finish with this; I have shown grace and will work with you towards amicable solutions while recognizing we will not agree on most issues if there is a reciprocation.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC

———————-

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 5:29:34 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Sam,
I wish this same criticality would be applied to Stevens clearly dishonest representation of events. I agree about the progress that was made in restoring the email, but there was not meaningful progress in any regard beyond that.

But as we just discussed, Steven continues his pattern to try to present the progress as being more broad, and is attempting to exonerate his own potential misconduct.

He is attempting to prejudice the LNC members who did not participate in the call along with the members of the public to believe that anything he has done has been in good faith.

This directly serves to benefit his cause by further delaying his accountability to instruct counsel to answer the questions raised by directors of the corporation as to pressing urgent legal considerations about our ongoing business, and attempting to make himself look better as he faces an extremely serious censure motion (which I expect that the majority of the board will likely continue their same pattern of behavior and dismiss uncritically just as they have repeatedly done with credible legal concerns in recent meetings).

I will not stand by as he attempts to create a crisis by illegitimately restricting Mr. Martins access and then trying to claim benevolence for restoring it. I further will not tolerate the microscope only being applied to me for responding to his deliberately misrepresentative characterization of the discussions, and I would interpret continued pressure of this nature as a deliberate attempt to isolate me on this board in similar manner to what has already been attempted against Mr Martin.

If Mr Nekhaila continues to not be questioned for his part in this exchange and the dishonest presentation, it severely limit my willingness to engage in these discussions going forward.

Andrew Chadderdon
Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

————————-

From: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 8:17:16 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.chadderdon@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel.bohler@lp.org>; Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>; James Wiley <james.wiley@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Restoration of Mr. Martins Email Privileges

Mr. Nekhaila,

Last night, you attempted to blackmail and extort me into silence before backing down. You forced me to negotiate for my basic member rights to communicate, vote on email ballots, access counsel, and participate in discussions.

I am not happy about this.

Sincerely,
Austin Martin
R1