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

[Wes Benedict]

I apologize for sending this to the business list. I meant to forward it 
to Robert Kraus, but sent the email while I was talking to him at the 
same time.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
*New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

On 9/22/2014 9:32 AM, Wes Benedict wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140922/23380dc3/attachment-0002.html>