FW: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 2:52:16 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

Aloha, Mr. Chair, 

You inaccurately claimed in a prior email on this thread that “Mr. Sarwark is directly involved on the Vest side of the case”.

But Ms. Vest herself disputes this. 

I find it troubling that you would not know by now that she publicly announced that Mr. Sarwark does not represent her and is not involved with her lawsuit. 

Was Mr. Hall under a different impression? 

Did either of you even bother to ask? 

The following was reported on Third Party Watch on 8/19/2025. Ms. Vest said, in relevant part: 

"To be clear, Nick doesn’t represent me. He’s not even licensed in the local where my suit is filed. He is trying to encourage LNC members to do the right thing, but he neither consulted me about anything he’s doing, nor is it on my behalf. I heard about it when you posted your FB post. I wanted to make that clear. Not that I don’t respect what he’s trying to do, but he doesn’t inform me about anything. He’s not my representative."

Full article at: https://thirdpartywatch.com/2025/08/19/vest-on-sarwark/

Mr. Chair, it appears you and Mr. Hall catastrophically breached LNC confidentiality by inviting Mr. Sarwark into your secret settlement negotiations. This disaster is aggravated by the exclusion of members of LNC and members of the ExComm from these meetings. 

You and Mr. Hall both have consistently avoided answering important questions which I am compelled to ask by my fiduciary duties. It seems dishonest to avoid accountability by citing fear of leaks — after you and Mr. Hall have already leaked everything yourselves months ago to an outside party.  

I am thankful that you finally acknowledge that you have unilaterally pursued the entire legal strategy since taking office ultra-vires and without proper authorization from the LNC. However it’s a little late to be asking for our authorization / ratification of your choices so long after the fact. Much has happened without authorization nor oversight. 

I worry the strategy we are pursuing is both fatally flawed, and (frankly) dishonest. It appears (from my perspective) the LP is being set up to lose this case, with Angela and the MC as the main scapegoats, while justifying outside legal interventions & possible court-ordered control over our operations. 

My question now is this: why wasn't your announcement today accompanied by a sincere apology to myself and Mr. Chadderdon for your retaliations against us for making precisely these inquiries?

Also, we still need answers (in writing) to our other urgent questions without delay. 

Mahalo! 

Austin Martin 

R1

---

Mr. Chadderdon,

I had stated that the derivative lawsuit is NOT in the best interest of the Libertarian National Committee. I have never stated that it was, and if I did it was a grammatical mistake, which is why we are moving to have the suit dismissed. It is also why Mr. Sarwark was attempting to spin the case in an unflattering matter as he is directly involved in the Vest side of this case.

My intentions have been, and always will be, in the best interests of this body.

You have been given your options on how you wish to receive the answers to your questions, and it is up to you if you'd like to proceed. I will not be responding further.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairnan, LNC

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:25:59 AM
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

 

Mr. Chair,

Your recent email contains contradictions that undermine your stated commitment to the Libertarian National Committee’s best interests. Have you forgotten that you recently sent an email containing sensitive statements about our legal strategy—directly contradicting the guidance provided to this body by Mr. Hall—to an attorney with no connection to the ongoing legal matter you claim to protect? Are you aware that this communication was promptly leaked to a media outlet, placing it in the public domain?

How can you assert with any credibility that “neither I, nor counsel, believe it is in the best interest of the LNC to put information related to an ongoing legal matter into an email that could be leaked or used later against us” when you are directly responsible for the only known leak of legal strategy? Mr. Hall, copied on that email, indicated he “probably” advised you on the communication and saw no issue with it. This raises serious questions about your judgment and consistency.

Furthermore, Mr. Hall has communicated to the LNC, and our court filings have asserted, that the derivative suit is not in the corporation’s interest. How can you reconcile this with your improper disclosure that “the goal of the derivative suit is in the interest” of the corporation? This contradiction further erodes your credibility to dictate which communications pose a liability for the LNC.

Your claim that my inquiries, or those of Mr. Martin, constitute “borderline harassment” is baseless and appears to be a deflection from your own actions. My questions were compiled into a concise, written format out of respect for counsel’s time, yet you continue to insist on off-the-record discussions, which only heightens suspicion about your motives. Your assertion that there is no ongoing investigation into the whistleblower complaint is irrelevant to the need for transparency, as the complaint raises serious concerns that merit written responses to ensure accountability.

You have failed to provide a valid reason why my questions cannot be answered in writing, as has been done previously, nor have you explained your abrupt reversal on the urgency of addressing them. I reiterate my demand for prompt, written, and on-the-record responses to the questions provided earlier by email and summarized in my list of concerns submitted with the whistleblower complaint.

Continued obstruction will only exacerbate this situation for all involved, particularly for the party, whose well-being we are all duty-bound to prioritize in our actions.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:05:11 AM
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

 

Mr. Chadderdon,

First and foremost, everything I do is in the best interest of the Libertarian National Committee.

Second, the reason I did not want a torrent of questions directed at our counsel is because the way in which you and your colleague Mr. Martin went about it was borderline harassment and unprofessional. In the interests of treating our counsel with respect, I did not want the practice to continue.

Third, I am bending over backwards to give you what you want, which is to have your questions answered. Neither I, nor counsel, believe it is the in the best interest of the LNC to put information related to an ongoing legal matter into an email that could be leaked or used later against us. That is why we both prefer to handle this via a phone call.

Fourth, all legal matters are considered to be privileged information regardless of my opinion on the matter. This board has been proven to leak information, which is why I added the disclaimer to be explicitly clear on the issue. 

Lastly, there is no ongoing investigation for the "whistleblower complaint" as there is no remedy asked for by the complainant. Furthermore, Mr. Martin has alluded to an "investigation". There is no investigation except if initiated by the body, hence, there is no investigation.

I hope you are satisfied with the opportunities I have given you to receive the information from your inquiries.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 7:46 AM
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

 

Mr. Chair,

Can you or Mr. Hall please explain why, just days ago, when I asked these same questions, you described them as abusive of Mr. Hall’s time? You specifically stated that answering a laundry list of questions spread across multiple emails was not a good use of his time and that any LNC member seeking more information would need to wait until September 7 for further access to his time or legal advice.

Why is it that only after I spent considerable time compiling these questions into a single, concise document, it is now so urgent that they must be addressed in a call? Because the large number of questions were initially denied timely answers, I invested significant time to compile them into a format that could be easily and conveniently referenced in writing, out of respect for Mr. Hall’s valuable time.

Why is it that only now, after I made concessions to address your concerns about using Mr. Hall’s time efficiently, you are reversing course and insisting that these questions be answered off the record, in a situation where LNC members are prohibited from having a record of their communications with counsel?

The complete list of questions provided earlier by email and summarized in my list of concerns submitted with the whistleblower complaint should be answered promptly in writing and on the record before you demand any off-the-record communications.

You must immediately cease any actions in retaliation against or suppression of the ongoing whistleblower complaint. If there is a valid reason the questions cannot be answered on the record, you should provide a clear explanation of why these questions are unique and how they differ from the numerous previous questions answered via email.

Additionally, you must provide a clear explanation for your abrupt reversal, as you previously stated these questions were a waste of counsel’s time, yet now deem them so urgent that they cannot be answered on the record. Please address these concerns transparently, Mr. Chair, as your actions are escalating the situation and raising questions about the intentions behind these decisions.

Continued obstruction will only exacerbate this situation for all involved, particularly for the party, whose well-being we are all duty-bound to prioritize in our actions.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:38:29 PM
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>
Subject: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

 

Dear Colleagues,

Mr. Hall, our general counsel, wishes to address the questions cited by Mr. Chadderdon and Mr. Martin.

To best accommodate the members who wish to be present to receive the answers and with respect to Mr. Halls schedule, I would like to schedule a meeting for that purpose. He is available before the 5th, as he flies out Friday morning, or after Monday afternoon/evening.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Chadderdon, your schedule takes priority, so please let counsel know what date/time works best, and we will create a meeting link.

Please note, that this meeting will be considered "executive session" as we will be discussing legal material and general rules of confidentiality apply.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 3:07:27 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

Mr. Martin,

Nick Sarwark is not the legal respresentative of the case, but is serving in capacity as a front man for Ms. Vest. 

In the same way, Ackerman respresents the LNC in this case, and Fox Rothschild represents Ms. McArdle, while Oliver Hall is the LNC's general counsel.

We are filing a joint dismissal with McArdle.

I would be happy to get into the details of the discussion with Sarwark and Vests legal counsel on next Wednesdays call.

I would also be happy to invite Ackerman to a call with the board at the body's request.

Lastly, it was not me who intiated the motion to dismiss, it was Angela McArdle. The motion was filed on 10/18/2024. Defendants filed an opposition and we filed our reply on 11/22/2024. The court denied the motion on 12/18/2024.

Our attorneys wish to file a new motion to dismiss, my intentions have always been to win the case or have it dismissed in line with the interests of the LNC, I have not done anything to indicate otherwise.

I hope you will be able to participate in the call on September 10^th where your and Mr. Chadderdons questions will be answered in full.

Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:52 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 3:28:33 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>; 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: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

Colleagues,

Adding the public forwarder to this thread was inappropriate and is considered a knowing breach of confidentiality. When privileged legal matters are made public without authorization, it undermines this body’s position in court and exposes the Party to risk.

This is part of a repeated pattern of turning legitimate governance into personal theatre. Every member here has a duty to protect confidentiality and conduct business properly. None of us benefit from leaks or theatrics.

Counsel will address the questions at the call scheduled for next week. That is the appropriate forum. 

This will be the last I say on the matter until our scheduled call with counsel.

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Oliver Hall <olive...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:21 PM
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; 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: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

 

I would like to add that Mr. Martin's accusations below are false and unfounded.

Oliver B. Hall
Special Counsel 
Libertarian National Committee
202-280-0898

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 3:41:21 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; oliverbhall <olive...@gmail.com>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Setup Time for Call with Counsel

Aloha, Mr. Nekhaila!

I did not breach confidentiality. 

You and Mr. Hall breached confidentiality, working in concert with Nick Sarwark, as detailed in my ethics complaint. 

Not me. I am under whistleblower protection, as per policy, and I was diligent in my care to avoid unnecessary confidential disclosures.

I believe the information discussed in this thread is already public, thanks largely to you, Hall, and Sarwark. Therefore it is highly disingenuous to project blame on the whistleblower again for the negative consequences of your unilateral actions to CYA.  

Further you announced the need for ratification for the unauthorized actions taken by your like-minded cohorts. Why are you now knowingly deceiving the board about the Motion to Dismiss? You misrepresented your unauthorized "motion to dismiss" as if it was the same motion as was filed in 2024. It isn't. This seems like a deliberate attempt to again frame McArdle for your own misconduct. 

Is Mr. Hall now denying that he breached confidentiality with Nick Sarwark? 

I caution you both against further retaliation against the whistleblowers. 

Mahalo! 

Austin Martin

R1

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 5:28:33 PM