The Accused Investigate Their Accuser | Martin on Trial
Region 1 sent Austin Martin to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) specifically to provide oversight. He did the job well. He blew the whistle on a breach of members’ personal data that forensic investigators later confirmed, a Treasurer’s admission of undisclosed conflicts, and a lawsuit against the Party’s former Chair that directors were not allowed to read before it was filed. The LNC answered with two censures, a gag on his list access, and now a 236-page report (counting linked content) from a Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) demanding his resignation.
The SIC adopted it October 15, voting 4 to 0 on nine of its ten specifications and 3 to 1 on the tenth. The full LNC votes October 20 at 8:00 PM ET. Amanda Griffiths, whose name appears in the statements charged, sat on the committee and voted on them.
The accused investigate their accuser.
Exhibit A: Martin’s Beliefs
The SIC’s appendix points readers to austinmartin.exposed, a public website whose name announces the verdict. This is the bulk of the page count. This was not attached as its own file, but as a website that can presumably be edited after adoption. The site says, “generated August 7”, five weeks before the SIC existed, and names no author. It is built as a prosecutor style brief, with a loose one-line justification under each exhibit.
One such exhibit (A.4-III-2) is a July 20 post: “Anyone defending socialism, communism, or Antifa at all in the LP should be understood to be one of them. Expose them. Do not let them hide.” The claim for including this is that it contributes “negatively to party culture and values of tolerance for diverse libertarian perspectives.” Holy infiltration Bat Man! Saying socialism doesn’t belong in the Libertarian party violates the Party’s tolerance for libertarian perspectives? Socialism and communism rest on taking property by compulsion. Calling that anti-libertarian is not a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. It is the Non-Aggression Principle in action.
Another exhibit (A.4-III-3) is literally a prayer posted to his personal X account: “Father God, please turn your attention to the members of the LNC, who abuse and do harm to those who seek to do good. They persecute without cause... If they can be saved, I would have you save them... and help me not to sin in my fury against them.” The justification for this one is a “religious invocation calling for divine retribution” that “fails to contribute positively to LNC culture and values.” A Christian asked God to save his opponents and to keep him from sin, and the SIC dossier calls that misconduct.
It gets worse. On August 5, 2026, Martin replied to another user who objected that Martin’s prayer was “unbiblical”. Martin responded with Biblical quotes:
“Can you even read, or are you just making it up? ‘Remember that I stood before you to speak good on their behalf, to turn away your wrath from them. Therefore... do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger.’ Jeremiah 18:20-23 ‘Cover their faces with shame, Lord, so that they will seek your name. May they ever be ashamed and dismayed; may they perish in disgrace. Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord—that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.’ Psalm 83:16-18 ‘Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath.’ Romans 12:19 Asking for salvation for enemies or their removal as an obstacle is wholly biblical and proper. I have not asked God to “kill” anyone by praying for deliverence from the brood of vipers. We all need Jesus, as we all barely understand what we are doing.” ~ Exhibit BL.4.1-28
This quote is included as a violation of Bylaws Article 4.1 (the non-aggression principle). Its note says the passages call for enemies to be “overthrown” and to “perish in disgrace,” and that Martin “distinguishes between asking God to ‘kill’ and praying for their ‘removal as an obstacle,’ suggesting the latter is the operative request.” Quoting a Bible verse that tells believers to leave vengeance to God is literally presented as evidence of the initiation of force.
Exhibit BL.4.1-7 is a September 2025 reply on X: “The use of force is not always wrong. The philosophical justification of its use is always based on the facts of the circumstances.” The website’s note on this one says the post “contradicts the Statement of Principles requirement (Bylaws Art. 4 Sec. 1) that Party members certify opposition to initiating force to achieve political or social goals,” and calls it “an endorsement of force contrary to foundational Party membership criteria.”, but the sentence quoted never mentions initiating anything at all.
Neither exhibit is among the ten charged specifications, which was probably good for the self-preservation of the SIC. However these are prominent inclusions in the report and is a major source on which the SIC relied to "investigate" unspecified “complaints” against Chairman Martin.
Pity Party: Hurt Feelings on Display
What’s so “damaging” to the organization? This LNC claims it is “one that no reasonable person would serve on, because they would be ‘abused’ so regularly.” They claim Martin’s opinions and duties create “a hostile work environment.” One member “regretted having run”. In case you can't tell yet, those are feelings. The Code the SIC enforces bans conduct “that may be perceived by others” as harassment, so the offended party decides what counts as “harassment”. See the problem? On this committee the offended parties are also the judges. Martin has been criticizing exactly this problem for over a year, which is now being also being framed as a violation of policy. Martin has previously been banned without process, appeal, votes, or due process from nearly all public-facing party forums due to the same dynamics. If he criticizes the administration of a group as one of its directors, the criticism is counted as a violation summarily without trial, and just like that, a quarter of the LP is censored without recourse. Anyone who complains about it gets the same treatment. This is the dynamic that led Martin to describe his colleagues as “speech-nazis”, a descriptive label, not a mere pejorative.
The SIC knows the rule it is breaking. Their Conclusion says “vigorous disagreement, sharp criticism of leadership, and dissent from the majority” are ordinary features of a governing board, and that the Code “does not prohibit any of them.” It even describes criticism of the New Hampshire disaffiliation as “protected dissent.” Then it adopts a dossier that treats a question about a compromised LNC as undermining the organization while claiming his religious views and his opposition to socialism is intolerance contrary to libertarianism.
The same pattern shows up with the term “extreme prejudice.” The report quotes Martin saying, “I didn’t threaten violence. I promised to forcibly remove you,” but then says he was “not willing to clarify”. He explained it in public as permanent removal from the Party, “I did not call for physical violence. I called for removal,” and as “finality of judgement with no chance for appeal.” When asked by the SIC, he told them the missing word they are trying to read into his language is “terminate.” (40:05)
Martin’s interview is on LPHI’s YouTube channel.
The dossier skips his explanations pretending they do not exist. The report says he resumed the language “within weeks” of taking his seat, though he had used it with the same meaning for months (Exhibits BL.4.1-4, BL.4.1-5, BL.4.1-6, and BL.4.1-14 show the phrase in September and October 2025).
McGee, The Unprincipled Little Man
McGee chaired the SIC. He is the LNC Secretary who moved the Code of Conduct Martin is charged under. As Secretary he receives complaints, and he told Martin during the interview that he never received the ones Martin sent. He keeps the records the report relies on and holds the sealed key to every complainants’ name. If the LNC adopts his report, he becomes one of its two trial managers, alongside Griffiths.
Griffiths works with and lives near Kyle Davis, (accused of breaching the LNC data and attempting to acquire LPHI data). She and Davis are close friends and associates. Together, they led the attempted hijacking of the 2025 Hawaii Convention to try to remove Martin as Chair. Griffiths handled Chair McMahon’s motion to form the SIC. She voted on October 8 to cut Martin’s list access while the investigation was taking place. Griffiths is also named as a target/victim in the report. Additionally, one of the two outside members attended only two of fourteen interviews and missed Martin’s. Nobody on the SIC recused themselves from the adoption vote.
He asked McGee for one example of him attacking someone’s immutable characteristics. McGee answered: “You haven’t attacked anyone’s immutable characteristics from what I can tell.” (15:27) Three days later, McGee signed a Conclusion claiming the opposite. By McGee’s own standard, truth is the distinction between ad hominem attacks and descriptions, but the report never asks whether the labels Martin used fit the people he applied them to.
In September 2025, in the Roos appeal, McGee told the Judicial Committee that the LNC is not bound by the Statement of Principles, that it is not “a self-executing disciplinary code,” and that treating it as one “could have dangerous future implications.” The brief even warned that leaders could be “censured for misstating a fact in a press release or even a personal remark.” A year later, he chairs a committee that charges Martin over personal remarks on personal social media, and uses the membership pledge as a disciplinary code to accomplish it. Martin told the committee McGee “swore up and down” the Code would not be used to police members’ opinions. (35:06) The Statement of Principles bind Martin, but not anyone else on the LNC. We agree that Article 4 binds every LNC member, but McGee argues the opposite as long as it’s convenient.
Rush Job
On October 11, the day before the SIC heard from Martin, Chair Evan McMahon called a special meeting for October 16 to act on a report that did not yet exist. Martin was never sent the call, because staff had dropped him from the lists, which the LNC’s technology chief later called an administrative error. Region 1 Alternate Sonja Feintech raised a point of order citing the five-day notice rule, and McMahon ruled the meeting void. On October 15, he called a new one for October 20. Click here to register to view the meeting over Zoom.
If Martin does not resign, the SIC asks the LNC to take three steps at its October 20 meeting. First, adopt the four charges and ten specific counts against him, and order him to appear for trial November 21 at 5:00 PM ET “to show cause why he should not be disciplined, up to and including suspension and removal from office.” Second, adopt the SIC’s report. Third, suspend his right to post on the LNC email lists and to vote on National Committee business from the day he is notified until the case ends, with the Region 1 Alternate exercising both.
The report goes far beyond a list of charges. It states that Martin “has violated” the rule against attacking board members and describes conduct without charges as “also considered” violations. It asks the LNC to treat it as “evidence toward the severity” of his violations, even though the LNC is not asked to vote on it. If the report passes, every member who votes yes goes on record behind those findings before any hearing begins, and Martin will be tried by a body that has already adopted them.
The Seat Belongs to Region 1
Bylaws Article 7, Section 8 says a Regional Representative “may be removed and replaced only by the act of the affiliate parties that constitute the subject region.” The report points to no bylaw that lets the LNC remove a Representative. Its only authority is a consent clause in the Region 1 Agreement that Martin signed as LPHI Chair, which it treats as an act of “affiliate parties” through the “creation and/or signing” of the Agreement. Region 1’s Chairs withdrew that consent, 10 to 0 with one abstention, “to the full extent the Agreement allows.” Martin told the committee this during his interview: “The LNC does not have power to remove region reps.” (58:36) Removal is not an option the LNC holds.
Cutting off his communication is in effect the same as suspension, and the consent behind it is narrow. According to the report, the Chairs agreed to suspension during the investigation, and only “if necessary to protect the LNC from breaches of fiduciary duty.” The investigation is over, one charge is fiduciary, and none involves Martin’s voting record. LNC Chair McMahon ruled in September that a motion to suspend Martin’s email was out of order “as a suspension of a member’s right without due process,” according to Region 1’s resolution. The October 8 ballot then limited his forwarder access with no charges, no notice, and no hearing, and passed with twelve votes. Griffiths had said in July that list access should not be revocable “at any time without any process”, but she voted for it anyway.
Policy Manual §1.02(7), as Feintech quoted it, requires email notice to every member, and the voided October 16 meeting showed what happens when a member is dropped from the lists. The LNC cannot silence a Region’s voice without voiding its meetings. The Bylaws leave one avenue, which is Region 1, and their chairs have spoken up. They chose Martin, loud and clear.
Call to action
Contact entire.lnc@lp.org and your LNC Regional Representative before the October 20 vote at 8:00 PM ET. Demand that they vote no on adopting the report, restore Martin to every LNC list, and answer Region 1’s resolution in a meaningful way.
You can also register to attend their Zoom meeting. LPHI’s members overwhelmingly approved Martin as their Chair. Region 1 elected him unanimously. We’re not going anywhere.
Comments