As reported on Jake Porter’s substack jakeporter.substack.com.  The substack is donor-supported; consider going there and subscribing.

Other Items

The report also found:

• McArdle hired a neighbor on behalf of the party
• A website contract didn’t benefit the party and there are some potential conflicts surrounding it
• The committee investigated possible conflicts of interest regarding board member Pat Ford and McArdle for establishing separate FEC filing entities that received money from the Kennedy and LNC joint fundraising committee.

What’s Next?

Legal action: The SIC carefully considered the facts and evidence set forth in this report to determine whether it would be in the best interest of the LNC to pursue legal action based on the matters investigated. The SIC also consulted with LNC Counsel, who consulted with the LNC’s counsel in Vest v. McArdle, the derivative lawsuit pending in D.C. Superior Court, regarding this issue. The SIC concludes that the LNC may have a viable claim or claims against McArdle, Padgett and Freedom Calls LLC based on the facts and evidence available. For example, the SIC has concluded that the transactions with Freedom Calls LLC – in which the LNC paid Freedom Calls LLC a total of $49,600 – may be void or voidable pursuant to D.C. Code § 29-406.70, because McArdle did not disclose material facts relating to her financial interest in those transactions, and because the transactions were not fair to the LNC, among other reasons. The LNC therefore may have valid grounds for seeking restitution of the funds paid to Freedom Calls LLC.

Beyond the legal merits, the SIC was obliged to consider several additional factors that impact the LNC’s interests. First, the LNC’s Directors and Officers insurance policy provides coverage for the LNC’s defense when legal action is initiated against the LNC or its directors or officers, but does not cover the litigation costs of claims the LNC may pursue as a plaintiff. The LNC thus would have to pay those costs. Second, it appears the cost of pursuing a claim or claims for restitution of the funds paid to Freedom Calls LLC would exceed $49,600 – the maximum damages the LNC could reasonably expect to win. The litigation therefore would likely result in a net loss to the LNC, even if the LNC prevailed. Third, the outcome of litigation is never certain and there is a reasonable possibility the LNC would not prevail, or would be awarded less than the maximum damages claimed. Fourth, even if the LNC prevailed, further litigation – at additional cost – could be required to enforce and collect on the judgment, and collection ultimately could prove impossible if the defendant(s) were unable to make restitution.

Based on the foregoing, the SIC has determined that, although the LNC may have a viable claim or claims for restitution, litigation to pursue such action is not in the LNC’s best interest, primarily because the financial cost would outweigh the potential gain, leading to a net loss for the LNC. The SIC therefore recommends that the LNC not pursue any legal action for restitution if it is to be paid for from the LNC’s general funds. If the LNC and/or general membership feel strongly about pursuing restitution, and a donor or donors are willing to make sufficient contributions to a legal fund, the LNC could potentially initiate legal proceedings. Also, the LNC could search for an attorney who would take its case on a pro bono basis.

The investigatory report provided a lot of details and has given me more information that I need to investigate and has opened some new leads in a few areas related to RFK Jr’s influence over the Libertarian Party.

I was only able to touch upon some of the biggest findings in this report. The full report details the many efforts McArdle used to mislead the board on her conflicts of interests. My instincts were right to follow the money, and the report completely vindicates my previous findings.