In short, LNC Regional Representative Austin Martin made posts on X critical of the Special Investigatory Committee Report. National Chair Steven Nekhaila Ordered Martin to take the posts down, and several related steps. Martin refused. Nekhaila said that his order is not debatable. Hays claimed that something Martin said violated confidentiality of executive session meetings. Martin said that Hays confirmed something said in executive session. That might be Martin’s paragraph:
After properly reporting the ethical issue (to various LP officers in the presence of counsel [on multiple occasions], and in executive session), and then waiting for an appropriate length of time for them to respond, I am now exercising my right under the whistleblower protection clause. It is likely that any perceived violation(s) of this policy in regards to this matter would fall under the Whistleblower Protection Policy, and would not be actionable for enforcement.
The discussion may also refer to restrictions on debate in and after executive session to discuss the special report. We now advance to the exchange:
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>
Subject: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report
Mr. Martin,
I am writing regarding your recent public posts on X concerning the Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) report adopted by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC).
On 8/11/2025, you posted “This is straight up FRAUD” alongside a screenshot of the SIC report.
A few hours later, you posted “Watch Nancy Pelosi explain what happened to Angela McArdle earlier this year” with a Pelosi clip juxtaposed against screenshots of the SIC report, and subsequently agreed with a commenter comparing the LNC’s conduct to “deep state” tactics.
You are, of course, free to disagree with the conclusions of a committee or the Board. However, these posts cross multiple bright lines:
They constitute a clear and flagrant violation of Policy Manual §1.07.4(B)(I & II):
“LNC Members shall not:
I. Disparage the LNC or the Party nor endorse other political parties or their candidates. Further, LNC members shall not tell anyone that they should not donate to the Libertarian Party.
II. Engage in ad hominem or otherwise indecorous attacks against fellow board members in any official communication (be it internal or public) or in personal public communication.”
The “fraud” claim is an unsubstantiated allegation of criminality. If true, it must be reported internally with evidence; if untrue or unsubstantiated, it is reckless and injurious to the organization.
The Pelosi/“deep state” post publicly disparages the LNC, insinuates bad faith and conspiracy by fellow board members, and further undermines confidence in the Party’s governance.
Both posts violate your fiduciary duties under the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act, particularly the duties of loyalty and care, by damaging the Party’s reputation and donor confidence, and by creating a serious appearance-of-conflict given your caucus’s chair, the former LNC Chair, is a subject of the SIC report.
Required next steps:
Remove both posts (the “straight up FRAUD” post and the Pelosi/“deep state” post) within 24 hours of this message, along with any substantially similar content.
If you have specific, documented evidence of fraudulent conduct, submit it in writing to me and General Counsel within 72 hours so it can be addressed through the proper channels (Ethics/Discipline process, motion to reconsider, or external review if warranted).
Refrain from further public commentary on this matter while any review is pending.
Provide me with a brief written assurance that you will comply with PM §1.07.4(B) going forward.
Failure to cure will result in referral to the Ethics Committee for remedies up to and including censure and removal from committees or assignments, as contemplated by the Policy Manual for conduct harmful to the Party.
Confirm receipt and your plan to cure by close of business today. I am available to discuss a path forward that protects both your rights as a member and the Party’s institutional integrity.
Steven Nekhaila
Chair, Libertarian National Committee
——-
From: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 2:21:40 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report
Aloha, my colleagues!
It is with great sadness that I must bring this issue into the daylight, but secrecy does not serve the LNC in this most serious matter. As has happened with other members in the recent past: I have tried to report these issues internally in compliance with current LNC policy, even before such policy was adopted, but my reports were ignored.
I bring this matter to the attention of all because I am genuinely concerned for the LP and want to see us thrive as an organization. As such, I take our reputation with great seriousness, and intend to protect it.
My intent here is to stand up for our principles and our code of conduct – not to undermine it.
Mr. Chair,
Let me begin by respectfully insisting that you cease and desist from all further retaliatory activity against the legitimate discharges of the duties of my office, such as the demand letter you sent to me today.
I object to the misinterpretation of both the situation and the policy itself.
- The Conduct Policy you reference specifically protects my activities, saying in relevant part: “This does not discourage explaining their disagreement to constituents nor attempting to change such decisions through proper means such as lobbying for policy or bylaws changes and Judicial Committee appeals.”
- After properly reporting the ethical issue (to various LP officers in the presence of counsel [on multiple occasions], and in executive session), and then waiting for an appropriate length of time for them to respond, I am now exercising my right under the whistleblower protection clause. It is likely that any perceived violation(s) of this policy in regards to this matter would fall under the Whistleblower Protection Policy, and would not be actionable for enforcement.
- I sincerely believe my statements (which are the subject of the complaint) are completely true, and that disclosure of my criticisms is in the best interest of the LNC. I believe that the statements in question from the SIC are manifestly, even laughably false, and will almost certainly lead to damaging consequences for the LP if not promptly repudiated with the truth.
- I can and will defend what I have said as being my right and my duty in my capacity as a representative; I did not specifically name or charge any single individual – however it is worth noting that you yourself had a highly vested, material interest in the outcome. It therefore seems absurd to suggest my statements were “unfounded”.
- You falsely claim I violated DC Non-Profit Law by speaking my sincere opinion – the truth. I reject this self-serving interpretation of DC Non-Profit Law, and instead again bring this matter again to your attention: the SIC contains material inaccuracies from page one, and will almost certainly backfire if officially relied upon in a legal capacity.
- Multiple members of the SIC also directly and manifestly benefitted materially from the outcomes of the events in question, or were otherwise given benefits afterward by other such conflicted members, which gives rise to a serious appearance of impropriety, and of outright misrepresentation.
- Before I contemplate any form of compliance with your unreasonable 24-hour-demand-letter, I will be seeking further advice of counsel. If I prove to be mistaken in my understanding of the situation, then I will promptly issue an apology and comply with your request.
I would urge the members of this committee to make use of an independent professional service next time that an investigation of this nature is needed, or to otherwise engage a consultant about how to set up an Independent Litigation Committee which will not get laughed out of the court and undermine our good name. A third-party service would have easily avoided the drama and the manifest appearance of gross impropriety of having the suspects investigate themselves, and find all wrongdoing was someone else’s fault.
It’s a joke.
I have attempted to raise the issues in appropriate forums, and through the appropriate means, in compliance with the Policy Manual. My complaints have been steadfastly ignored, and retaliations have occurred. None of my social media posts violates any fiduciary duty, and no member has been wrongly defamed by my sincere criticisms of the absurd claims made within the SIC itself.
The conflicts are glaringly obvious and self-evident.
Censorship and willful blindness do not serve our organization nor our members.
I am asking you to cease your violations of our code of conduct against me in retaliation for my protected activities.
I am also now publicly calling for a truly independent investigation into the events in question to understand what really happened to our board.
THAT is my fiduciary duty, and yours.
I apologize if I have given anyone offense – it is certainly not offered intentionally. There really is just no “nice” way to say all this. I’m sorry if my truthful opinion offends you, but I do not agree that it forms any kind of policy violation, especially under the circumstances.
I truly regret the necessity, both of this communication and those you reference in your original email. I assure you my motivation is not from any ill-will nor personal animosity of any kind; I am to simply trying to do a good job representing my people.
Respectfully yours,
Austin Martin
R1
——————-
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 3:06:02 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Cc: Paul Darr <paul.darr@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-public_forward@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncboard@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Breach of Ethics & Fiduciary Duty — Public Statements Regarding SIC Report
Mr. Martin,
Your public posts as cited earlier are clear violations of PM §1.07.4(B)(I & II) and a breach of your fiduciary duties under D.C. nonprofit law. The whistleblower clause you cite does not shield public disparagement. Internal reporting is protected; public accusations of fraud against the LNC are not.
This conduct is exactly the type of board behavior cited in the Strategists Inc. Operational Review as damaging to the Party’s reputation, morale, and fundraising:
“Board members must demonstrate individual and collective restraint to create a cohesive brand that is not marred by sniping of opinions in forums outside the board room… Respect staff time, expertise, and morale by avoiding… public controversies.”
Directive to cure:
- Remove both posts within 24 hours.
- Provide any supporting evidence of alleged misconduct to me and General Counsel, Mr. Hall, within 72 hours.
- Refrain from further public commentary on this matter while under review.
- If you believe misconduct occurred, raise it through a noticed motion before the full LNC or in compliance with the whistleblower policy, submitted in writing to the Chair, Vice Chair, and General Counsel.
Noncompliance will result in referral to the Board for censure or removal from committees. This is not a debatable. It is a directive under adopted policy and precedent.
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
——————
From: Meredith Hays <meredith.hays@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 4:57 PM
To: Austin Martin <austin.martin@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
By sending this to the public list, you just revealed information out of executive session, including meetings with counsel. This does not suggest a good faith discharge of your duties.
Meredith Hays
Region 4 Rep, Libertarian National Committee
————
From: Austin Martin <austin.martin@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 3:26:09 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: 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, Ms. Hays!
Thank you for confirming my prior adherence to policy and prior notification of these issues during executive session. Though written complaints are not specifically required by the policy, I have corresponded appropriately to the same effect.
I take whistleblower policies and activities very seriously, and have made every attempt to avoid exercising this option, but I genuinely feel it is in the best interests of the Party to shine some sunlight on the matter.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Mahalo!
Austin Martin
R1
Gee who could have predicted this???????? Oh wait – that would be me when I said social media should fall under staff in development & be part of the fundraising & membership acquisition plan. Of course it also should be transparent & go thru APRC, etc.
This is his personal social media. It has nothing to do with staff.
Yet Steve did. nothing about the serious violations of Adrian Malagon hiding behind “lack of policy” yet the same DC Code he applied to Martin would apply to his duty to ensure LNC members and Party members were free from harassment. I don’t agree at all with Austin here but he is being treated unequally and swiftly which Nekhaila did not do with his buddy. In fact Steve has never acknowledged the formal complaint made nor has never apologized for his abject failure of duty. And Ms. Hays should not be stepping in when the Chair is handling. This whole “whistleblowing” thing (something I have experience with) is being grossly misunderstood here as well. But until Nekhaila acknowledges his former horrible screwups he looks like he is just picking on someone who is a minority voice. And his selective using of Debbie Mason as a shield is more than old.
There does seem to be a double standard here for Nekheila to go after Martin and not Malagon for a “clear and flagrant violation of Policy Manual §1.07.4(B)(I & II)”.
That being said, if Martin (Hector Roos) has evidence to back up his claims, go through the proper channels, not post to social media.
Martin is not a whistleblower.
Martin and Roos don’t like the SIC report.
Cry harder.
That section of the PM did not exist before Malagon’s resignation but his behaviour didn’t need a policy to violate. Further I filed an official complaint under existing PM procedures that Steve blatantly ignored. He completely is enacting a double standard.
You are also correct there is no “whistle blowing” going on, and I suspect you are correct that Roos is the ghost writer. I obviously cannot prove that but it seems so to me.
I am going to do a show on the whole “whistle blower” thing – you are correct it is just disagreement. And Austin as alternate is overstepping the bounds. If he wishes to properly accuse the LNC members of the SIC of fraud, he needs to get a full member of the LNC to move to investigate. If that motion does not pass, the LNC has rejected his whistleblower claims, and he needs to cease or face discipline. Region 1 agreement does allow removal and there is no JC appeal, but the Region 1 chairs can simply reappoint him. I know a lot of Region 1 members (don’t know about the chairs) are not happy with his allegations.
Those are the proper steps. I will expound more on my show but I am in no hurry.
Obviously this doesn’t apply to every member but I have no confidence in this LNC. It made my stomach churn to see Mr. Darr talk about how service on the LNC cost him “personal happiness” when he was copied on every single one of my requests for the harassment of Malagon to cease. He was content to watch me be in misery and then try to promote my harasser to my seat! A guy who has never been elected by delegates. Rewarding harassment. Where is my apology Mr. Darr?
All that being said, Mr. Martin’s allegations are nonsense. If he is going to say them and believes he is a whistleblower he has to be willing to pay the price. I did. Twice.
Looking forward to see if deadlines will be adhered to.