<div dir='auto'>Steven and Alex I love you guys but it clearly says it IS his ruling, not what his ruling would be.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is in direct contradiction to his statements around my complaint during the membership affair.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I do appreciate you trying to be peace makers though. Much respect.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">John Phillips<br>Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative<br>Cell 217-412-5973</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 7, 2020 8:50 PM, Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Mr. Merced is correct,
<br>
<br>
The Chair stated what his ruling of the Chair would be, if it came to a
<br>
vote regarding the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.
<br>
<br>
As a body, we still need to make a decision according to our rules using
<br>
our best individual judgements to come to a conclusion.
<br>
<br>
Nothing has changed.
<br>
<br>
In Liberty,
<br>
<br>
Steven Nekhaila
<br>
Region 2 Representative
<br>
Libertarian National Committee
<br>
<br>
Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
<br>
"Those without power cannot defend freedom"
<br>
<br>
On 2020-05-07 04:08 PM, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business
<br>
wrote:
<br>
> From what I understand Nicks post is an indication of a potential
<br>
> ruling not an edict which means...
<br>
>
<br>
> - it can be challenged if needed
<br>
>
<br>
> - doesn’t change the motion currently passed last Saturday
<br>
>
<br>
> - Doesnt force any action by the LNC on Saturday.
<br>
>
<br>
> So technically nothing has changed yet? Or am I wrong?
<br>
>
<br>
> Technically does an email declaration of a ruling not yet asked for
<br>
> have any weight? So if we theoretically passed a motion that was
<br>
> challenged, wouldn’t Nick have to make this ruling explicitly again at
<br>
> which point it would be challenged?
<br>
>
<br>
> If this is correct wouldn’t the previous email really just be Nick
<br>
> making clear how he will rule if that comes to be or am I misreading
<br>
> this?
<br>
>
<br>
> If it’s an edict unilaterally changing or forcing an action by the LNC
<br>
> that’s a problem (the wording doesn’t say that from my reading), if
<br>
> it’s an indication of how a chair will rule if a particular conflict
<br>
> arises well then it just gives time for those who’d challenge the
<br>
> ruling to be more prepared.
<br>
>
<br>
> I’m just trying to clarify before we escalate beyond where we are
<br>
> actually at in this process.
<br>
>
<br>
> Alex Merced
<br>
> Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
<br>
>
<br>
>> On May 7, 2020, at 3:55 PM, joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business
<br>
>> <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>> Hello all,
<br>
>>
<br>
>> I would ask that the Chairman of this board either resign if he can no
<br>
>> longer fairly respect the will of the board with impartiality, or go
<br>
>> back to being the impartial mediator that he is elected to be.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> The Chairman is not elected to push his own agenda on the board, or
<br>
>> the membership, and with each passing day it looks more and more like
<br>
>> the Chairman has overstepped the duties entrusted in him by those very
<br>
>> people.
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>> In liberty,
<br>
>> Joshua
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>> On May 7, 2020 2:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<br>
>> <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> I have a question for the body. I believe that the entire LNC is not
<br>
>> being
<br>
>> represented by our general counsel but rather Mr. Sarwark is. Do we
<br>
>> have
<br>
>> any recourse to ask for additional counsel? This is pretty
<br>
>> outrageous,
<br>
>> that I would join in costs if other LNC members felt we needed
<br>
>> representation due to this usurping of power by our Chair. I have
<br>
>> said for
<br>
>> two years now there are no officers in this party other than our
<br>
>> Chair.
<br>
>> Now there is effectively no LNC. Figureheads would be a promotion.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> *In Liberty,*
<br>
>>
<br>
>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
<br>
>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br>
>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If
<br>
>> anyone
<br>
>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
<br>
>> faux
<br>
>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:35 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<br>
>> <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br>
>> wrote:
<br>
>>
<br>
>> > I too would like to know how the "vast majority" was determined. Our
<br>
>> > largest affiliate California has instructed the LNC otherwise. Colorado is
<br>
>> > nothing to sneeze at and there is nothing preventing us from attending.
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > Respect the decision of the LNC. You are presiding officer not overlord.
<br>
>> > If you insist on putting our general counsel in the untenable position of
<br>
>> > rendering a parliamentarian opinion, I will be moving that the LNC retain
<br>
>> > and actual PRP.
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > I do not know what has caused this strange shift of behaviour but this is
<br>
>> > not the very tempered behaviour of the Chair I have worked with for four
<br>
>> > years now who knew how to respect the hierarchy in place and accept things
<br>
>> > he thought were bad decisions. You are free to appeal to the Judicial
<br>
>> > Committee l like anyone else. You are not free to disregard the LNC and
<br>
>> > usurp all power to yourself.
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > *In Liberty,*
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
<br>
>> > (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br>
>> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br>
>> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
<br>
>> > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:32 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org>
<br>
>> > wrote:
<br>
>> >
<br>
>> >> Our counsel is not a parliamentarian. I am aghast he would offer an
<br>
>> >> opinion outside his area of speciality. No parliamentarian would render
<br>
>> >> that opinion. If anyone decided to sue over this, I firmly believe Mr.
<br>
>> >> Hall would be in danger of malpractice. This LNC is in dereliction of its
<br>
>> >> duty by not retaining a PRP for that determination. Further, you do not
<br>
>> >> have authority as Chair to override the decision of the LNC. This has gone
<br>
>> >> beyond a ridiculous power grab. The LNC has decided. Period.
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> *In Liberty,*
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
<br>
>> >> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
<br>
>> >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
<br>
>> >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
<br>
>> >> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:55 PM Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>> >>> Nick, how do you intend to demonstrate that it will be "impossible" for a
<br>
>> >>> "vast majority" of the delegates to travel to a convention in July?
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:36 PM Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> > Dear Colleagues,
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> > It is my ruling as Chair, and supported by the opinion of the
<br>
>> >>> Libertarian
<br>
>> >>> > National Committee's special counsel, Oliver Hall, that “place” in the
<br>
>> >>> > bylaws can mean a virtual convention in the situation where it is
<br>
>> >>> > impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the
<br>
>> >>> party to
<br>
>> >>> > travel to a physical location.
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> > As such, a virtual convention held on Memorial Day weekend would be a
<br>
>> >>> > proper convention and compliant with the bylaws.
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> > Yours in liberty,
<br>
>> >>> > Nick
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:26 PM Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business <
<br>
>> >>> > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>> > > The COC's job is to plan a convention, in accordance with bylaws.
<br>
>> >>> The LNC
<br>
>> >>> > > is responsible for final decisions. No one is being forced to do
<br>
>> >>> > anything,
<br>
>> >>> > > especially by the COC. It is not the COC's job to suggest a
<br>
>> >>> convention
<br>
>> >>> > plan
<br>
>> >>> > > that is not in line with bylaws. The COC's job is to put together
<br>
>> >>> plans,
<br>
>> >>> > > offer options for the LNC to choose, and make suggestions where
<br>
>> >>> > applicable.
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> > > The LNC could have moved to change plans at any time...it didn't.
<br>
>> >>> The LNC
<br>
>> >>> > > could have voted this past Saturday to do something other than
<br>
>> >>> > > postpone......It didn't.
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> > > If an LNC member wants something other than an in-person convention,
<br>
>> >>> in
<br>
>> >>> > > accordance with bylaws, they should move such. The LNC will
<br>
>> >>> > > decide.....again.
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:36 AM BetteRose via Conventions <
<br>
>> >>> > > conventions@hq.lp.org> wrote:
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > I believe it was the LNC that voted for the in person convention.
<br>
>> >>> The
<br>
>> >>> > CoC
<br>
>> >>> > > > may have 'pushed' for that outcome but we didn't make the final
<br>
>> >>> > decision.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > My concern is, that as deaths continue to rise we may again have to
<br>
>> >>> > find
<br>
>> >>> > > > another venue and move the convention once again. This will be
<br>
>> >>> hard on
<br>
>> >>> > > > most of the delegates and won't play well in the press. I see
<br>
>> >>> that the
<br>
>> >>> > > > Democrats are already having trouble with that same issue.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > BetteRose Ryan
<br>
>> >>> > > > Publisher
<br>
>> >>> > > > Bent Briar Publishing <http://www.bentbriarbooks.com/>
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > -----Original Message-----
<br>
>> >>> > > > From: Alicia Mattson via Conventions <conventions@hq.lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > > To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business@hq.lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > > Cc: Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org>; Convention Oversight
<br>
>> >>> > > > Committee <conventions@hq.lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > > Sent: Sun, May 3, 2020 11:34 pm
<br>
>> >>> > > > Subject: Re: [COC 2018-20] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC
<br>
>> >>> > > > Consideration
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Well, I meant to send that to the COC email list, but I was going
<br>
>> >>> to
<br>
>> >>> > come
<br>
>> >>> > > > here and say pretty much the same thing.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > From this forwarded message below, Valerie Sarwark wrote to us:
<br>
>> >>> "The
<br>
>> >>> > > > Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing
<br>
>> >>> suppression of
<br>
>> >>> > > > delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention."
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Force? Suppression of delegates? Those of differing opinions are
<br>
>> >>> > > > attempting to achieve their desired result, too. Is that force?
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > We're getting a lot of email these days, and it's easy to skim and
<br>
>> >>> miss
<br>
>> >>> > > > details, so I wanted to highlight this. The demonizing of the COC
<br>
>> >>> is
<br>
>> >>> > as
<br>
>> >>> > > > shameful as it is absurd.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > -Alicia
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:28 PM Alicia Mattson <
<br>
>> >>> alicia.mattson@lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > > wrote:
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Forwarding for those of you not on the LNC. The rhetoric being
<br>
>> >>> spewed
<br>
>> >>> > > > about the COC is becoming more and more outrageous. There was
<br>
>> >>> quite a
<br>
>> >>> > > bit
<br>
>> >>> > > > of it flung around during the Bylaws and Rules Committee meeting
<br>
>> >>> today
<br>
>> >>> > as
<br>
>> >>> > > > well...
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > -Alicia
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
<br>
>> >>> > > > From: *justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business* <
<br>
>> >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > > Date: Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:01 PM
<br>
>> >>> > > > Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration
<br>
>> >>> > > > To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > > Cc: <justin.odonnell@lp.org>
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Attached is a letter to the LNC from a Region 8 Member and New
<br>
>> >>> > Hampshire
<br>
>> >>> > > > delegate for the LNC's consideration.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Justin O'Donnell
<br>
>> >>> > > > LNC Region 8 Representative
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
<br>
>> >>> > > > From: Valerie Sarwark
<br>
>> >>> > > > Date: May 3, 2020 2:55 PM
<br>
>> >>> > > > Subject: Request for LNC Consideration
<br>
>> >>> > > > To: Justin.Odonnell@lp.org
<br>
>> >>> > > > Cc: Pat.Ford@lp.org
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Justin,
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > As my regional representative, please forward this letter to the
<br>
>> >>> LNC
<br>
>> >>> > > > business list.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Pat,
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Thank you for your responsible "no" vote in yesterday's meeting.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > ****
<br>
>> >>> > > > Dear Members of the Board,
<br>
>> >>> > > > I am a delegate to the National Convention representing the state
<br>
>> >>> of
<br>
>> >>> > New
<br>
>> >>> > > > Hampshire. This is the third convention to which I have the great
<br>
>> >>> > > privilege
<br>
>> >>> > > > of serving as a delegate.
<br>
>> >>> > > > I would like you to strongly consider retaining the original
<br>
>> >>> convention
<br>
>> >>> > > > dates and move to an electronic business meeting. The nomination of
<br>
>> >>> > > > presidential ticket and LNC positions should be filled as soon as
<br>
>> >>> > > possible
<br>
>> >>> > > > to ensure we have the strongest start to Election Day (which is
<br>
>> >>> only
<br>
>> >>> > 180
<br>
>> >>> > > > days from now).
<br>
>> >>> > > > The Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing
<br>
>> >>> > suppression
<br>
>> >>> > > > of delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention. The
<br>
>> >>> > country
<br>
>> >>> > > is
<br>
>> >>> > > > in the middle of a pandemic with many states not even open for
<br>
>> >>> > gatherings
<br>
>> >>> > > > of over 10 people. The country is in the middle of an economic
<br>
>> >>> collapse
<br>
>> >>> > > > with millions unemployed and unable to pay rent. You are now asking
<br>
>> >>> > these
<br>
>> >>> > > > people to somehow rearrange their schedules, spend more money and
<br>
>> >>> > > > potentially put their lives at risk.
<br>
>> >>> > > > In addition to the financial constraints on many of our delegates
<br>
>> >>> (the
<br>
>> >>> > > > majority of which are dues-paying members of the party), you are
<br>
>> >>> not
<br>
>> >>> > > > considering those affected by scheduling as far as their children.
<br>
>> >>> I
<br>
>> >>> > have
<br>
>> >>> > > > spent YEARS as active as possible and trying to make the party a
<br>
>> >>> more
<br>
>> >>> > > > welcoming place for families. Although both my husband and I have
<br>
>> >>> been
<br>
>> >>> > > able
<br>
>> >>> > > > to work through this time, it seems financially irresponsible to
<br>
>> >>> drag
<br>
>> >>> > the
<br>
>> >>> > > > entire family to a yet-to-be-determined site. With so many that
<br>
>> >>> are in
<br>
>> >>> > > the
<br>
>> >>> > > > same situation (or potentially worse off), would you feel
<br>
>> >>> comfortable
<br>
>> >>> > > > asking them to go into debt just so they can have their voices
<br>
>> >>> heard?
<br>
>> >>> > > > We’ve all blocked this time. We’re all ready for this meeting. We
<br>
>> >>> all
<br>
>> >>> > > want
<br>
>> >>> > > > to participate but we are now being told that we have to reschedule
<br>
>> >>> > > > everything within a couple of weeks. We are in the middle of an
<br>
>> >>> > emergency
<br>
>> >>> > > > and forcing people to shuffle their schedules, lives, and finances
<br>
>> >>> > around
<br>
>> >>> > > > is quite ridiculous. This isn’t about courage or principles. This
<br>
>> >>> is
<br>
>> >>> > > about
<br>
>> >>> > > > doing the best thing for the delegates that represent the party.
<br>
>> >>> Other
<br>
>> >>> > > > political meetings with greater participants have already occurred.
<br>
>> >>> > > > Shouldn’t we show the world that we are serious, considerate,
<br>
>> >>> > innovative
<br>
>> >>> > > > and ready to adapt?
<br>
>> >>> > > > The best choice for some is not the best choice for all. An online
<br>
>> >>> > > > convention, held Memorial Day weekend, will not exclude delegates.
<br>
>> >>> You
<br>
>> >>> > > need
<br>
>> >>> > > > to consider the right thing to do for ALL of the delegates.
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > Sincerely,
<br>
>> >>> > > > Valerie A. Sarwark
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________
<br>
>> >>> > > > Conventions mailing list
<br>
>> >>> > > > Conventions@hq.lp.org
<br>
>> >>> > > > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions
<br>
>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________
<br>
>> >>> > > > Conventions mailing list
<br>
>> >>> > > > Conventions@hq.lp.org
<br>
>> >>> > > > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions
<br>
>> >>> > > >
<br>
>> >>> > >
<br>
>> >>> >
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>> --
<br>
>> >>> *Whitney Bilyeu*
<br>
>> >>> Libertarian National Committee
<br>
>> >>> Region 7 Representative
<br>
>> >>> 281.433.4966
<br>
>> >>> LP.ORG
<br>
>> >>>
<br>
>> >>
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>