FW: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 6:56:04 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

POINT OF ORDER

Regarding the Actions of the Executive Committee on March 16, 2026

I. Statement of the Point of Order

I rise to a Point of Order that the actions taken by the Libertarian National Committee Executive Committee on March 16, 2026, are out of order, ultra vires, and in violation of multiple provisions of the LNC Policy Manual, including the fiduciary obligations codified therein, and are therefore null and void unless properly authorized within the governing limits established by the full LNC.  I believe this Point of Order may also be raised independently within the Executive Committee by any of its members.

Under RONR 12th ed. §23:6(a) and (b), a point of order relating to a continuing breach takes precedence over pending business and must be ruled upon promptly by the Chair. No further action should be taken to advance the litigation authorized on March 16, 2026, until this point of order has been addressed.

II. Background

On March 16, 2026, the Executive Committee voted to initiate three lawsuits in separate votes, with the McArdle litigation adopted 4–2 and the two New Mexico-related actions believed to have been adopted unanimously. These actions included adding approximately $20,000 to a "Legal - Proactive" budget line item (8210-20) that, per the draft budget dated November 29, 2025, was budgeted at $20,000 and specifically earmarked for the New Mexico trademark litigation. This effectively doubled a line item designated for a discrete purpose, while simultaneously authorizing litigation projected to cost far more than the combined total. At least one lawsuit, the litigation against former LNC Chair Angela McArdle, is projected to exceed $50,000. Despite specific prior requests for cost projections on the McArdle litigation, no substantive estimates were provided. Total anticipated litigation costs across all three actions exceed $70,000 even under the most conservative estimates advanced by those who voted for these actions — estimates that will almost certainly be exceeded as litigation progresses.

Among the three actions was the initiation of trademark defense litigation in New Mexico — an action of critical importance to the Party's ballot access and organizational integrity in that state. The LNC has a duty to defend its trademarks against egregious and deliberate infringement that has been ongoing for years. On October 5, 2025, the full LNC unanimously adopted the following motion:

"Direct the chair or his designee/s to prepare a proposal for initiation of trademark litigation, and potentially additional litigation relating to ballot access at the discretion of the chair, in New Mexico, to be presented to the Executive Committee in a meeting to be held within 1 week."

The Chair did not comply with this directive. No proposal was presented to the Executive Committee within one week, nor in the weeks and months that followed. Instead, the Chair waited approximately five and a half months — until March 16, 2026 — at which point the New Mexico trademark action was bundled with the McArdle litigation and a third action in a single meeting, after months of delay during which the New Mexico actions could have proceeded independently on their own merits — as the unanimous votes they ultimately received demonstrate.

The consequence of this bundling is that any successful challenge to the McArdle litigation — including this Point of Order — now threatens to delay or derail the New Mexico trademark action, which the LNC has a longstanding obligation to pursue. The factual pattern raises the concern that the bundling was not incidental but strategic: by tying the New Mexico action to the procedurally deficient McArdle litigation, any effort to enforce compliance with the Policy Manual on the latter can be characterized as obstructing the former.

Region 1 has consistently pressed for procedural compliance on these matters. This Point of Order is directed at the procedural and budgetary violations described below, and should not be construed as opposition to the New Mexico trademark litigation, which Region 1 has actively supported and advocated for since it was first raised.

III. Statement of Facts

The following facts are relevant to this Point of Order:

1. The ExCom voted on March 16, 2026, to initiate three lawsuits in separate votes. The McArdle litigation was adopted 4–2. The two New Mexico-related actions — trademark defense and ballot access litigation — are believed to have been adopted 6–0, though no approved minutes have been produced to confirm the precise vote tallies.

2. These lawsuits require new, previously unbudgeted expenditures totaling at minimum $20,000, and likely far more.

3. The McArdle litigation specifically is projected to exceed $50,000 in costs, despite specific prior requests for detailed cost projections that went unanswered. Total anticipated costs across all three actions exceed $70,000. This figure reflects the most conservative estimates offered by proponents of the litigation during the March 16 meeting and is provided here to demonstrate that the Policy Manual violations exist even accepting those projections at face value. Actual costs will inevitably be higher.

4. The LNC is currently operating under an estimated deficit of approximately $250,000. The precise figure cannot be confirmed because the approved budget has not been produced.

5. Based on the draft budget dated November 29, 2025, the budget includes a "Legal - Proactive" line item (8210-20) of $20,000, annotated as "ExComm 10/12: New Mexico Trademark." This line item was specifically earmarked for the New Mexico trademark litigation directed by the LNC's unanimous October 5, 2025 motion. The ExCom's March 16 actions added approximately $20,000 to this line item while simultaneously authorizing litigation projected to far exceed the combined total — effectively doubling a line item earmarked for a specific, discrete purpose, and repurposing it to subsidize unrelated litigation.

6. Based on the draft budget's total budgeted revenues of approximately $1,195,409, the 1% cap on new unbudgeted expenses under PM §1.05(1) is approximately $11,954.

7. No approved minutes of the relevant meeting have been produced.

8. On October 5, 2025, the full LNC unanimously adopted a motion directing the Chair to prepare a proposal for trademark litigation in New Mexico and present it to the Executive Committee within one week. The Chair did not comply. No proposal was presented within the specified timeframe. The Chair instead delayed approximately five and a half months before bundling the New Mexico action with the McArdle litigation and a third lawsuit in a single March 16, 2026 meeting.

9. The LNC previously adopted the report of the Special Investigatory Committee regarding the McArdle matter. That report recommended that any litigation be independently funded — that is, funded outside the LNC's operating budget. The ExCom did not comply with this recommendation and instead proceeded under its own authority using general LNC funds.

10. During the March 16 meeting, ExCom members attempted to distance the McArdle litigation from the SIC report, characterizing it as based solely on publicly available information. This creates an unresolvable dilemma: if the litigation is based on the SIC report, the independent funding recommendation is binding as part of the adopted report and was not followed; if the litigation is not based on the SIC report, then the ExCom has initiated litigation without any LNC authorization whatsoever, as no separate motion authorizing McArdle litigation on alternative grounds has been adopted by the LNC.

IV. Violations of the Policy Manual

1. PM §1.01(3) — Executive Committee Authority
   The Policy Manual provides that the Executive Committee "shall exercise all powers of the LNC between LNC meetings, when urgency demands a more immediate time frame than when the LNC can next meet, except for amendment of the LNC policy manual or amendment of the budget beyond the limits specified elsewhere in this policy manual."
   The ExCom's actions violated both prongs of this provision. First, urgency has not been demonstrated — the McArdle matter has been pending for months, and the New Mexico trademark action was delayed by the Chair himself for approximately five and a half months in defiance of a unanimous LNC directive with a one-week deadline. Second, the budget amendments required by these actions exceed the limits specified in §1.05(1), as detailed below. The ExCom therefore acted outside its delegated authority.
   
   
2. PM §1.05(1) — Budget Amendment Limits
   The Policy Manual authorizes the Executive Committee to "add lines for previously unbudgeted expenses, the total of which shall not exceed one-percent (1%) of budgeted revenues." Based on the draft budget's total budgeted revenues of approximately $1,195,409, this limit is approximately $11,954.
   The ExCom's actions committed at minimum $20,000 — and realistically far more — in new litigation expenses in a single meeting. This exceeds the 1% ceiling by a significant margin. The actions are therefore unauthorized budget amendments.
   Additionally, the Policy Manual provides that the ExCom may only "amend expense items within one budget area, as long as the total expense for that budget area is not increased." The draft budget shows total Legal expenses (line 8210) of $74,000, comprising $54,000 in general legal and $20,000 in proactive legal earmarked for New Mexico trademark work. Adding $20,000 to this budget area increases it to approximately $94,000 — a 27% increase in total expense for that budget area, in direct violation of this provision.
   The ExCom's actions fail under either characterization: whether treated as new unbudgeted expenses (exceeding the 1% cap) or as amendments within an existing budget area (increasing the total expense for that area by 27%).
   
   
3. PM §1.06(2) — Authorization and Management of Lawsuits
   The Policy Manual requires that, prior to filing a lawsuit in which the LNC is a named plaintiff, the Chair shall: (1) advise all LNC members of the proposed lawsuit, its purpose, and its estimated cost; (2) confirm, or seek and obtain approval for, the budgetary authority for the expenses of the lawsuit "as provided elsewhere in this policy manual"; and (3) seek and obtain approval with a two-thirds vote of the Executive Committee.
   Even assuming the 2/3 ExCom vote was obtained, §1.06(2) independently requires compliance with the budgetary provisions of the Policy Manual. The 2/3 vote authorizes participation in the lawsuit; it does not override the budget ceiling in §1.05(1) or the delegation limits in §1.01(3). Budgetary authority was neither confirmed nor obtained through proper channels.
   
   
4. PM §1.08(3) — Prohibition on Unbudgeted Disbursements
   The Policy Manual separately provides: "Funds shall not be disbursed for any expense that is not in the budget, unless otherwise authorized in this policy manual."
   This is an independent bar on expenditure. The litigation expenses at issue are not in the approved budget. The only mechanism by which the ExCom may authorize unbudgeted expenses is §1.05(1), which caps such additions at approximately $11,954 based on the draft budget. That cap has been exceeded. No other provision of the Policy Manual authorizes these disbursements.
   
   

V. Breach of Fiduciary Duties — PM §1.07(4)(C)

The Policy Manual codifies the fiduciary duties of LNC members and makes violations subject to the disciplinary procedures of §1.07(4)(F)–(G). The ExCom's actions constitute multiple independent breaches that cannot be waived by procedural vote alone.

1. Duty of Obedience
   LNC members "must make sure that the LNC is abiding by all applicable laws and regulations and doesn't engage in illegal or unauthorized activities" and have "a duty to act in a manner that carries out the LNC's mission and purpose." The ExCom acted in direct violation of the budget limits and litigation authorization requirements of the Policy Manual, committing the organization to unauthorized financial obligations. This is a failure to ensure the organization acts within its own governing framework.
   
   
2. Duty of Care
   LNC members have "a duty to ensure the prudent use of all corporate assets and exercise the same care as a reasonably prudent person in the management of the corporation's affairs." The ExCom approved at least $70,000 — and in reality far more — in unbudgeted litigation while the organization operates under an estimated deficit of approximately $250,000, without confirmed available funds, without a produced approved budget, and without documented budget authority. This is not a matter of business judgment resulting in an unforeseeable loss. No reasonably prudent fiduciary would authorize expenditures of this magnitude under these financial conditions without verified budget authority.
   
   
3. Duty of Loyalty
   LNC members "shall make decisions in the best interest of the corporation in the advancement of its mission, and not in the best interest of individual board members." The litigation priorities reflected in the March 16 actions appear misaligned with the organization's financial capacity. The ExCom deviated from the LNC's adopted SIC report recommendation that McArdle litigation be independently funded. The proactive litigation budget line earmarked for New Mexico trademark defense was co-opted to subsidize unrelated litigation against a former officer. The inability or unwillingness to address the likelihood of success in the McArdle lawsuit, combined with the risk of expending scarce organizational resources on litigation of uncertain merit during a period of severe deficit, raises serious concerns that these decisions were not made solely in the best interest of the LNC as a whole.
   
   
4. Duty of Good Faith
   LNC members "shall act in good faith and in a manner the member reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the LNC," acting "with honesty, fairness, and a conscious regard for their responsibilities." Proceeding without verified budget authority, without transparency regarding the approved budget, and without compliance with explicit Policy Manual requirements demonstrates a conscious disregard of governing obligations inconsistent with good faith execution of fiduciary duties.

VI. Requested Ruling

Under RONR 12th ed. §49:7, no action of a board (or its executive committee) can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action is null and void. Furthermore, the society's assembly may give the board instructions which it must carry out, and may rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late. This principle is directly applicable here on multiple grounds:

First, the full LNC unanimously directed the Chair on October 5, 2025, to prepare a proposal for New Mexico trademark litigation and present it to the Executive Committee within one week. This was an instruction the Chair was obligated to carry out. He did not. The five-and-a-half-month delay and subsequent bundling with the McArdle litigation effectively altered the scope and terms of the LNC's directive — something the ExCom has no authority to do.

Second, the full LNC adopted the Special Investigatory Committee report, which recommended that any McArdle litigation be independently funded. The ExCom's decision to fund this litigation from the general operating budget directly conflicts with that adopted recommendation. Under §49:7, this action is null and void. Moreover, the ExCom has failed to satisfy even the basic requirements of PM §1.06(2), which requires that all LNC members be advised of the proposed lawsuit's purpose and estimated cost prior to filing. The purpose of this requirement is not merely administrative — it exists to ensure that the full board can evaluate whether proposed litigation serves the interests of the organization and has a reasonable likelihood of success before committing scarce resources to it. No such evaluation has been presented. The ExCom has not articulated how this litigation overcomes the substantive defenses raised by McArdle's counsel in response to the demand letter, has not addressed the significant legal and factual obstacles to prevailing, and has not explained how expending tens of thousands of dollars in donor funds on litigation of uncertain merit — during a period of severe organizational deficit — advances the mission of the Libertarian Party rather than the political objectives of a faction within it. The absence of any substantive case for success, combined with the refusal to provide cost projections despite repeated requests, suggests that the decision to pursue this litigation was driven by political considerations rather than a good-faith assessment of the organization's legal interests.

Third, the ExCom exceeded the budgetary limits the full LNC established through the Policy Manual — limits that function as standing instructions to the ExCom regarding the boundaries of its delegated authority. Actions that exceed those boundaries are not merely procedural defects; they are actions in conflict with the decisions of the parent body and are void accordingly.

The Chair is requested to rule that:

1. The March 16, 2026, Executive Committee actions are out of order as violations of PM §1.01(3), §1.05(1), §1.06(2), and §1.08(3).
   
   
2. The actions are ultra vires and void under RONR 12th ed. §39:5 and §49:7, as they exceed the authority delegated to the Executive Committee by the LNC and conflict with prior decisions of the full LNC.
   
   
3. The actions constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under PM §1.07(4)(C), including the Duty of Obedience, Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty, and Duty of Good Faith.
   
   
4. No litigation shall proceed and no funds shall be expended pursuant to the March 16, 2026, actions absent proper LNC authorization and full compliance with the Policy Manual.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 9:00:13 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

This is quite a lot, but appears mistakes were made. I echo the request for rulings. 

Andrew Watkins

At Large | Libertarian National Committee

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 2:56:04 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 1:36:20 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

Are we going to get a ruling on this point of order?

Vivat Christus Rex

Bryce Thon

---

From: Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 4:00:13 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 1:38:46 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Bryce Thon <bryce...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

There will be a ruling, please be patient as I consider the point of order.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:36 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 1:46:03 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

Thank you Mr. Chair

Libertas sub Christo Rege

Bryce Thon|Region 1 2^nd Alternate|Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 8:38:46 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 1:19:08 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

Mr. Chadderdon,

The Chair has considered the Point of Order concerning the Executive Committee’s actions of March 16, 2026, authorizing three litigation matters and related expenditures.

The Policy Manual, Section 1.05, places relevant limits on the Executive Committee’s budgetary authority. It permits the Executive Committee to add lines for previously unbudgeted expenses only up to one percent (1%) of budgeted revenues, and to amend expense items within a budget area only so long as the total expense for that budget area is not increased.

The Policy Manual also permits the Executive Committee to approve litigation on behalf of the LNC in certain circumstances. However, that authority does not eliminate or override the budgetary limitations imposed elsewhere in the Policy Manual. Authorization to proceed with litigation does not by itself authorize the Executive Committee to incur financial obligations in excess of existing budget authority.

Based on the materials before the Chair, the Executive Committee on March 16 approved three litigation-related matters involving the Law Office of Gary Fielder, Fresh IP, and Bernabei & Kabat, and also approved increases or obligations associated with those matters. In the aggregate, those financial commitments exceed the budget authority the Executive Committee may exercise under Section 1.05.

Accordingly, the Point of Order is well taken to the extent that the Executive Committee may not, through its own action, incur litigation-related financial obligations beyond the limits established by the Policy Manual and the budget adopted by the LNC.

The Chair further finds that litigation-related actions which can be satisfied within already existing and duly adopted budget authority may proceed, but actions requiring additional budget authority may not proceed unless and until such authority is granted by the full LNC or otherwise properly authorized under the Policy Manual.

Based on the record presently before the Chair, the motion authorizing the Chair to sign a retainer agreement with the Law Office of Gary Fielder for the purposes of LPNM ballot access is within existing authority and is therefore in order.

Based on the record presently before the Chair, the motions authorizing the Chair to sign retainer agreements with Fresh IP and with Bernabei & Kabat would require financial commitments beyond the authority presently available to the Executive Committee and are therefore out of order unless and until the necessary budget authority is granted by the full LNC.

Accordingly, the Chair rules as follows:

1. The Point of Order is sustained in part with respect to the Executive Committee’s authority to incur litigation-related financial obligations beyond the limits of Policy Manual Section 1.05.
   
   

2. The motion authorizing the Chair to sign a retainer agreement with the Law Office of Gary Fielder for LPNM ballot access is in order.
   
   
3. The motions authorizing the Chair to sign retainer agreements with Fresh IP and Bernabei & Kabat are out of order absent further budgetary authorization from the full LNC.
   
   
4. Any further litigation-related expenditures beyond presently available authority must be submitted to the full LNC for approval or otherwise authorized in compliance with the Policy Manual.

This ruling is limited to the budgetary and procedural issues presented. It does not reach broader claims or characterizations beyond what is necessary to resolve the Point of Order.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 2:56 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 1:41:51 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

Mr. Chair,

I wanted you to know just how much I love how Mr. Chadderdon phrased his Point of Order:  

"The Chair did not comply with this directive... Instead, the Chair waited approximately five and a half months — until March 16, 2026 — at which point the New Mexico trademark action was bundled with the McArdle litigation...

The consequence of this bundling is that any successful challenge to the McArdle litigation — including this Point of Order — now threatens to delay or derail the New Mexico trademark action, which the LNC has a longstanding obligation to pursue. The factual pattern raises the concern that the bundling was not incidental but strategic: by tying the New Mexico action to the procedurally deficient McArdle litigation, any effort to enforce compliance with the Policy Manual on the latter can be characterized as obstructing the former."

Holy smokes, folks.

This was very well said, Mr. Chadderdon. 

Mahalo nui loa!

Austin Martin

R1

Join the fight and support the removal of Antifa from the LP by donating at the link below:

Lp.org/martindonor 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:19:08 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 1:49:53 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Budget and Fiduciary Violations, ExCom Actions of March 16, 2026

For the record,

The issue was raised by the ExCom and a litigation committee was formed to carry out the process of finding and retaining attorneys, even the Chair of the affiliate was included. 

The action was the creation of a litigation committee to handle this matter. The litigation committee submitted proposals it was comfortable with, including the affiliate, for the presented retainers.

Furthermore, the LNC had already given the rightful NM affiliate $2,500 to begin the process as authorized.

The whole reason we are forced to pay attorneys for NM ballot access and IP is because our pro-bono legal support was lost because Andrew Chadderdon and Austin Martin, representatives of the state affiliate they are supposed to serve, harassed our legal counsel for months to the point that he did not want to work with them.

The material damages of those actions are $25,000, which is $25,000 the LNC will now have to pay out of pocket.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:41 PM