[Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: [Lnc_ec] Kentucky Update and Conference Call Time

[Wes Benedict]

fyi


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Lnc_ec] Kentucky Update and Conference Call Time
Date: 	Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:03:45 -0600
From: 	Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
Reply-To: 	lnc_ec at hq.lp.org
To: 	James Lark <jwl3s at virginia.edu>
CC: 	lnc_ec at hq.lp.org



Jim,

It is 9:30 pm EDT.

There are unlikely to be negative consequences.  Likely outcomes are
either winning and the court forcing objective standards and/or
putting Patterson in the debate or losing with the court deciding this
wasn't enough to be discrimination under the Arkansas precedent.
There is a chance that the court would try to make a broad ruling that
public TV stations are allowed to pick and choose candidates
arbitrarily.  I doubt that highly, and if that did happen, we could
make a lot of hay with it and get ACLU and other organizations
involved nationally.

However, I will ask Ken to ask the attorney or give me the info to
contact the attorney to double check in advance of the EC call.

-Nick

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, James Lark <jwl3s at virginia.edu> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Sarwark:
>
>     I hope all is well with you.  Thank you for your message. Since it is
> not specified in the message below, please confirm the time of the meeting
> on Tuesday.  Based upon our discussion on Sunday, I assume the meeting will
> take place at 9:30 p.m. EDT.
>
>     I do not recall our discussing the issue of the possible impact of an
> adverse ruling in the lawsuit.  Since you did not mention this issue, are we
> justified in assuming you consider it unlikely an adverse ruling will
> produce serious negative consequences?
>
>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  I look forward to speaking
> to you and our colleagues on Tuesday evening.
>
>     Take care,
>     Jim
>
>     James W. Lark, III
>     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
>     University of Virginia
>
>     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> -----
>
>
> On 9/21/2014 10:53 PM, Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
>>
>> All,
>> I spoke to Ken Moellman by phone today regarding the Kentucky lawsuit.
>> I presented the plan of having the LNC sign on as a plaintiff and that
>> my intent was that each plaintiff would commit to raising a target of
>> $4000, but a minimum of $3000 for support of the lawsuit. Ken was on
>> board with that as well as the expectation that he would vouch for
>> David Patterson's commitment to following through (i.e., we'd expect
>> Ken to raise at least $6000 if David didn't follow through).  I
>> committed that the LNC would provide donor call lists to LPKY and the
>> Patterson campaign to support that effort.
>>
>> I gave him the go ahead to file as soon as possible with the intent to
>> do two depositions, rather than one, since deposing different people
>> is more likely to lead to discrepancies that would improve our chances
>> of winning the lawsuit.
>>
>> I subsequently heard from Mr. Patterson that Tuesday would work best,
>> so I would ask the Secretary to announce the call on the business
>> list, cc: to Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> and David Patterson
>> <david at david4senate.com> on the LNC Business list with the call-in
>> information.
>>
>> I believe the call should not last more than an hour and should be
>> significantly shorter, since the motion to encumber funds has already
>> been made, so it's mostly a matter of laying out the logistics and
>> getting questions answered from Ken and David.  If there's something
>> else I'm missing that needs to be covered, please let me know.
>>
>> As it is litigation to be filed, we should be circumspect on the call
>> about specific allegations, deposition strategy, etc.  As a
>> co-plaintiff, I'll ask for copies of the briefs and be able to ask
>> specific questions of the attorney handling the case, so if there are
>> such questions or concerns by EC members or LNC members, I can field
>> them.
>>
>>
>> Thanks again for being available for this call and let me know if
>> there's anything I can answer ahead of time or ask Ken or David to
>> prepare in advance that would make it go more smoothly.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Lnc_ec mailing list
Lnc_ec at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc_ec_hq.lp.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140922/cf61384f/attachment-0001.html>