FW: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:26:42 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

POINT OF ORDER

Regarding the Chair's Ruling on the New Mexico Trademark Litigation (Fresh IP PLC)

I. Statement of the Point of Order

I rise to a Point of Order that the Chair's ruling of March 19, 2026, is erroneous to the extent that it voids the Executive Committee's authorization of the New Mexico trademark litigation (Fresh IP PLC retainer). The Chair improperly treated independently authorized actions as a single aggregate budget commitment, allowing the procedurally deficient McArdle litigation to poison the procedurally sound trademark action. The New Mexico trademark litigation was within existing budget authority when evaluated on its own merits — as it should have been, given that it was authorized in a separate vote, funded from a dedicated budget line, and backed by a unanimous directive of the full LNC.

Under RONR 12th ed. §23:6(a) and (b), a point of order relating to a continuing breach takes precedence over pending business and must be ruled upon promptly by the Chair. The LNC's obligation to defend its trademarks in New Mexico is being actively frustrated by this ruling. Every day that passes without action strengthens the position of the parties infringing on the Libertarian National Committee's registered trademarks.

II. Background and Procedural History

On October 5, 2025, the full LNC unanimously adopted the following motion:

"Direct the chair or his designee/s to prepare a proposal for initiation of trademark litigation, and potentially additional litigation relating to ballot access at the discretion of the chair, in New Mexico, to be presented to the Executive Committee in a meeting to be held within 1 week."

The Chair did not comply with this directive within the specified timeframe. On October 12, 2025, the Executive Committee created a litigation committee to oversee trademark and related matters. On December 6, 2025, the full LNC adopted the 2026 budget, which included a "Legal - Proactive" line item (8210-20) of $20,000, annotated in the budget document as "ExComm 10/12: New Mexico Trademark." This line item was specifically and exclusively earmarked for the New Mexico trademark litigation. It was not amended during the December 6 budget adoption process. It passed as part of a unanimously adopted budget (13-0-0).

At that same December 6 meeting, an LNC member moved to add $65,000 to the litigation budget for the purpose of pursuing legal action against former LNC Chair Angela McArdle. That motion died for lack of a second. The full LNC, with the budget before it and full knowledge of the organization's financial position, declined to fund McArdle litigation.

On December 7, 2025, hours after the full LNC declined to fund McArdle litigation, the Executive Committee voted 5-0 to expand the scope of the litigation committee to include "any litigation or legal actions regarding former LNC chair McArdle" — establishing the organizational infrastructure to pursue the very action the full LNC had declined to authorize the previous day. At the same meeting, the ExCom authorized a $2,500 disbursement to the New Mexico affiliate to begin retaining counsel for related litigation, noting the $20,000 budget line was available for this purpose and identifying an approaching February filing deadline.

The Chair then took no further action on the New Mexico trademark litigation for over three months — missing the February filing deadline entirely — until March 16, 2026, when he bundled the trademark action with the McArdle litigation and a third action in a single meeting. The motions were voted on separately. The McArdle litigation (Bernabei & Kabat retainer) was adopted 4–2 over significant objections from ExCom members. The New Mexico trademark litigation (Fresh IP PLC retainer) was adopted 6–0 without objection. The McArdle litigation had no budget authorization, no LNC directive, and had been explicitly declined funding by the full LNC three months earlier. The trademark litigation had a dedicated $20,000 budget line, a unanimous LNC directive, a 5-0 ExCom authorization from December, and the full weight of the LNC's obligation to defend its registered trademarks.

On March 18, 2026, I filed a Point of Order challenging the ExCom's actions. That Point of Order explicitly stated: "This Point of Order is directed at the procedural and budgetary violations described below, and should not be construed as opposition to the New Mexico trademark litigation, which Region 1 has actively supported and advocated for since it was first raised." The Chair's ruling disregarded this explicit limitation.

On March 19, 2026, the Chair ruled the Point of Order sustained in part. The Chair correctly voided the McArdle litigation (Bernabei & Kabat) and correctly sustained the New Mexico ballot access litigation (Gary Fielder). However, the Chair also voided the New Mexico trademark litigation (Fresh IP PLC), treating all three actions as a single aggregate budget commitment that "in the aggregate" exceeded ExCom authority under Section 1.05.

This ruling is the subject of the present Point of Order.

III. The Chair's Ruling Is Erroneous as Applied to the Trademark Litigation

The Chair's ruling rests on a flawed premise: that three independently authorized actions must be treated as an indivisible aggregate. This premise produces an unjust and irrational result — voiding the one action that had the strongest authorization, the clearest budget authority, and the most direct connection to a unanimous LNC directive.

A. The Trademark Litigation Was Within Existing Budget Authority and Satisfies All Policy Manual Requirements

The approved 2026 budget, adopted unanimously on December 6, 2025, includes:

• Legal - General (8210-10): $79,000 (includes $25,000 added for D&O insurance deductible)
• Legal - Proactive (8210-20): $20,000 (annotated "ExComm 10/12: New Mexico Trademark")
• Total Legal (8210): $99,000

The March 16 ExCom actions relating to the trademark litigation were:

• Motion to authorize a retainer with Fresh IP PLC: $20,000 retainer at $300/hour
• Motion to increase budget line 8210-20 by $10,000

The $20,000 retainer is payable from the existing $20,000 in line 8210-20 — the line that was created specifically for this purpose. The $10,000 increase to line 8210-20 is within the 1% cap on new unbudgeted expenses. Based on the approved budget's total revenues of $1,350,509, the 1% cap is approximately $13,505. A $10,000 increase is well within that limit.

The trademark litigation therefore satisfies both requirements of PM §1.06(2) for authorization of lawsuits. First, the ExCom authorized participation by a 6–0 vote, exceeding the required two-thirds threshold. Second, budgetary authority was confirmed prior to filing in the form of a dedicated budget line adopted by the full LNC for this express purpose — satisfying the requirement that the Chair "confirm, or seek and obtain approval for, the budgetary authority for the expenses of the lawsuit as provided elsewhere in this policy manual." Both conditions precedent to filing were independently met.

Evaluated independently — as it must be, since it was voted on independently — the trademark action required no budget authority beyond what the full LNC had already provided plus a modest increase well within ExCom limits. The Chair's ruling does not dispute any of these figures. It simply declines to evaluate them independently. The Chair's ruling effectively voids an action that complied with every applicable provision of the Policy Manual.

B. The Aggregate Treatment Is Procedurally Improper

The ExCom voted on each litigation matter separately. The McArdle litigation was adopted 4–2. The trademark litigation was adopted 6–0. These were discrete actions with different purposes, different counsel, different budget implications, and different levels of LNC authorization. The Chair's own ruling recognizes this distinction — it sustained the Gary Fielder ballot access action as independently within existing authority while voiding the other two.

If the Chair can evaluate the Fielder action independently and find it within existing authority, the same analysis must be applied to the Fresh IP action. The Chair cannot selectively apply independent evaluation to one action and aggregate evaluation to the others. Either each action stands or falls on its own budget merits, or they are all evaluated together. The Chair chose a framework that produces neither consistent result — instead, it produces the precise outcome that my Point of Order warned would result from the bundling: the trademark action is killed while the McArdle action drags it down.

C. The McArdle Litigation — Not the Trademark Litigation — Caused the Budget Breach

The budget math is unambiguous:

• The Gary Fielder retainer ($2,500): within existing authority. The Chair agrees.
• The Fresh IP retainer ($20,000) plus $10,000 budget increase: within existing authority when evaluated against the dedicated $20,000 proactive legal line plus a $10,000 increase under the 1% cap.
• The Bernabei & Kabat retainer ($10,000) plus $10,000 budget increase: entirely unbudgeted. No dedicated line item. No LNC authorization. A motion to fund this at the December 6 meeting died for lack of a second.

It was the McArdle litigation that broke the budget ceiling. It was the McArdle litigation that lacked any LNC authorization. It was the McArdle litigation that the full LNC explicitly declined to fund. And critically, the McArdle litigation's $10,000 budget increase was allocated to line 8210-20 — the same budget line that was created and earmarked exclusively for New Mexico trademark litigation. The McArdle action did not merely exceed the budget ceiling in the aggregate — it raided the trademark litigation's dedicated funding line to pay for itself.

During the March 16 meeting, the Secretary, speaking on behalf of the litigation committee, conceded that the McArdle litigation would cost "at least $50,000 at least" — a figure consistent with the $65,000 estimate the full LNC declined to fund on December 6. ExCom members raised serious objections: one member characterized the action as "a fool's errand" based on feedback from McArdle's own opponents; another called it "a complete betrayal of the movement" and questioned whether members who supported it "care about the organization's survival." When pressed for detailed cost projections — a request that had been made weeks earlier and gone unanswered — the committee majority proceeded to a vote over these objections. The McArdle litigation passed 4–2. The trademark litigation, by contrast, passed 6–0 without a single objection.

The trademark litigation did not cause the aggregate breach — it was the victim of it. The Chair's ruling punishes the action the LNC directed and funded, while the action the LNC rejected is the one that created the problem. This is precisely the outcome I identified in my March 18 Point of Order when I wrote that the bundling "raises the concern that the bundling was not incidental but strategic: by tying the New Mexico action to the procedurally deficient McArdle litigation, any effort to enforce compliance with the Policy Manual on the latter can be characterized as obstructing the former."

D. The Two Actions Compared

To ensure there is no ambiguity about what the Chair's ruling has done, the two voided actions are compared here directly.

The New Mexico Trademark Litigation (Fresh IP PLC) — Voided by the Chair's Ruling:

• Authorized by unanimous LNC directive (October 5, 2025)
• Funded by a dedicated $20,000 budget line created for this specific purpose, annotated "ExComm 10/12: New Mexico Trademark" in the LNC-adopted budget
• Additional $10,000 budget increase within the ExCom's 1% authority ($13,505 cap)
• Total authorized: $30,000 — all within existing or permissible budget authority
• Satisfies both requirements of PM §1.06(2): ExCom authorization by a 6–0 vote exceeding the two-thirds threshold, and budgetary authority confirmed through a dedicated LNC-adopted budget line
• Supported by two prior LNC trademark enforcement actions documented in FEC filings totaling $50,401 — the LPMI litigation ($43,901, contested through the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a permanent injunction barring infringers from using the mark) and the Tidewater case ($6,500, won on default judgment) — both favorable outcomes that directly strengthen the LNC's trademark position in New Mexico
• The Tidewater case is the closest factual parallel — a disaffiliated organization continuing to use the party's name — and cost $6,500 because the defendant did not contest it. The LPMI case, fought through a federal appellate court, cost $43,901. Any defendant in New Mexico now faces both a default judgment precedent and a Sixth Circuit appellate ruling before the case begins. The rational calculation for a defendant in this position is to settle or not contest, meaning the New Mexico case likely tracks closer to Tidewater than LPMI in cost.
• The $30,000 authorization is not merely adequate — it is likely more than sufficient to resolve the matter to completion
• Even in the unlikely event that the New Mexico action is contested as vigorously as the LPMI litigation, the total cost ($43,901) would remain well within the total legal budget of $99,000 and could be accommodated within the existing budget area without requiring further LNC action. The trademark action does not present a budget risk under any reasonable scenario.
• Voted 6–0 by the ExCom on March 16 without a single objection at any stage of authorization
• Zero objections from any LNC or ExCom member at any point — October 5 directive, December 6 budget, December 7 ExCom authorization, or March 16 vote
• Explicitly excluded from the March 18 Point of Order that triggered the Chair's ruling

The McArdle Litigation (Bernabei & Kabat) — Also Voided (Correctly):

• No LNC directive of any kind
• No dedicated budget line — the $10,000 budget increase was allocated to line 8210-20, raiding the budget line that was created and earmarked exclusively for New Mexico trademark litigation
• A motion to fund it at $65,000 died for lack of a second at the December 6 full LNC meeting — the body explicitly declined to authorize this action
• $10,000 retainer plus $10,000 budget increase — entirely unbudgeted, exceeding ExCom authority
• Does not satisfy PM §1.06(2)'s requirement to confirm budgetary authority prior to filing — no budgetary authority existed, and the full LNC had declined to create any
• The $10,000 authorization represents at best 20% of the minimum projected cost. The litigation committee conceded costs would be "at least $50,000 at least," with no identified upper bound and no identified source of funding for the remaining 80% or more
• Specific prior requests for detailed cost projections went unanswered for weeks; cost information was provided only minutes before the March 16 meeting
• No analysis presented on likelihood of prevailing in the case
• No analysis presented on likelihood of collecting on any judgment
• No assessment of whether any recovery would exceed the legal costs of obtaining it — one ExCom member summarized the economics: "So we'll be out $50,000 to get $50,000. Cool."
• ExCom members characterized the action as "a fool's errand," "a complete betrayal of the movement," and "dumb"
• Voted 4–2 by the ExCom — one-third of the voting committee opposed

The Chair's ruling voided both of these actions on the same basis.

One had unanimous support at every level, a dedicated budget, full compliance with PM §1.06(2), strong legal precedent, two prior favorable judgments strengthening its position, total costs within authorized limits, $30,000 that likely funds the action to completion, and no budget risk even under the worst-case scenario.

The other had no budget, no LNC authorization, no compliance with PM §1.06(2)'s budgetary prerequisite, a conceded cost floor five times its authorization with no upper bound, no cost analysis, no success assessment, no collectability assessment, raided the trademark litigation's earmarked budget line to fund itself, and passed over the objections of a third of the committee.

The Chair treated them identically.

IV. The Full Record Demands Independent Treatment

The Chair stated that his ruling was "limited to the budgetary and procedural issues presented." The full record on those issues compels the opposite conclusion for the trademark litigation:

On October 5, 2025, the full LNC unanimously directed the Chair to bring the trademark litigation to the ExCom within one week. Under RONR 12th ed. §49:7, the ExCom may not take action that conflicts with a decision of the parent body, and the parent body may give instructions that the board must carry out. The Chair's failure to comply with this directive for five and a half months, followed by a ruling that now voids the action the directive required, effectively nullifies a unanimous instruction of the full LNC through the Chair's own delay and subsequent procedural ruling. The Chair cannot create the conditions that make an action procedurally deficient and then void it for being procedurally deficient.

On December 6, 2025, the full LNC unanimously adopted a budget that specifically earmarked $20,000 for this litigation. That budget line was created for the express purpose of funding the New Mexico trademark action. No other use was contemplated. No other use was authorized. The budget annotation says "ExComm 10/12: New Mexico Trademark" — not "proactive litigation generally," not "at the Chair's discretion," but New Mexico Trademark specifically.

On December 6, 2025, at the same meeting, the full LNC declined to fund McArdle litigation when a motion for $65,000 died for lack of a second.

On December 7, 2025, hours after the full LNC declined to fund McArdle litigation, the ExCom voted to expand the litigation committee's scope to include McArdle-related legal actions and separately authorized initial steps on the trademark litigation, confirming the $20,000 budget line was available for this purpose. That the ExCom moved within hours to establish the organizational infrastructure for McArdle litigation after the full LNC declined to fund it raises serious questions about whether subsequent actions — including the bundling of the trademark litigation with the McArdle action and the Chair's aggregate treatment of both in his ruling — were undertaken in the best interest of the organization or in pursuit of an objective the parent body chose not to authorize.

On March 16, 2026, the trademark action was voted on separately and adopted 6–0. The McArdle litigation was adopted 4–2 over objections that included characterizations of the action as "a fool's errand," "a complete betrayal of the movement," and "dumb" — from members of the very committee that voted on it.

On March 18, 2026, the Point of Order that triggered the Chair's ruling explicitly stated it was not directed at the trademark litigation.

At every stage — the October 5 directive, the December 6 budget, the December 7 ExCom authorization, the March 16 vote, and the March 18 Point of Order — the New Mexico trademark litigation had the full support and authorization of the bodies acting on it. At no stage did any body or member object to this action or question its budget authority.

And yet. The Chair's ruling is the first and only action in this entire sequence that has impeded the New Mexico trademark litigation. The question this body must consider is why.

V. Questions for the Record

• Why was the trademark action — which had a dedicated $20,000 budget line, a unanimous LNC directive, a 5-0 ExCom authorization, a separate 6–0 vote on March 16, full compliance with PM §1.06(2), zero objections at any stage, two prior favorable trademark judgments strengthening its position, $30,000 in authorized funding that likely covers the action to completion, and no budget risk even under the worst-case scenario — voided alongside the McArdle litigation? The McArdle action had no budget, no LNC authorization, no compliance with PM §1.06(2), a conceded cost floor five times its authorization with no upper bound, no cost analysis, no success assessment, no collectability assessment, raided the trademark line to fund itself, and passed only 4–2 over strenuous objections.
• If the ballot access litigation (Gary Fielder) can be evaluated independently and found within existing authority, why was the trademark litigation (Fresh IP) not evaluated independently under the same framework?
• Did the Chair's ruling involve any independent analysis of the trademark litigation's budget authority separate from the aggregate treatment, and if so, on what basis was the trademark action found to exceed existing authority when evaluated on its own merits?
• Did the Chair receive any outside advisement on the ruling, and if so, from whom?
• What is the current plan to enforce the LNC's trademark rights against the parties actively infringing on the Libertarian National Committee's registered trademarks in New Mexico?
• Given that the Chair was directed on October 5, 2025, to bring this matter to the ExCom within one week, and did not do so for five and a half months, and the Chair's ruling now voids the resulting action — what recourse does the LNC have to enforce its own unanimous directives?
• The $20,000 in budget line 8210-20 was earmarked exclusively for New Mexico trademark litigation. The McArdle litigation raided this line to fund itself. If that money cannot now be spent on the purpose for which it was budgeted, what is it for?

VI. Requested Ruling

The Chair is requested to rule that:

1. The New Mexico trademark litigation (Fresh IP PLC retainer and associated budget increase) is within existing budget authority when properly evaluated as an independent action, separate from the McArdle litigation.
2. Budget line 8210-20 "Legal - Proactive" ($20,000), created and earmarked for New Mexico trademark litigation, constitutes existing budget authority sufficient to fund the Fresh IP PLC retainer.
3. The $10,000 increase to budget line 8210-20 is within the Executive Committee's authority under PM §1.05(1), as it does not exceed 1% of budgeted revenues ($13,505).
4. The trademark litigation satisfies both requirements of PM §1.06(2): ExCom authorization by a 6–0 vote exceeding the required two-thirds threshold, and budgetary authority confirmed through the dedicated LNC-adopted budget line.
5. The McArdle litigation's $10,000 budget increase to line 8210-20, having been voided by the Chair's prior ruling, shall be reversed, restoring the full $20,000 in line 8210-20 to its intended purpose of funding the New Mexico trademark litigation.
6. The Fresh IP PLC retainer and associated budget increase are therefore in order, and the Chair's prior ruling voiding this action is corrected to the extent it treated the trademark litigation as part of an aggregate budget commitment with the McArdle litigation.
7. The Chair shall take immediate steps to execute the retainer agreement with Fresh IP PLC and initiate the trademark litigation in New Mexico, in compliance with the LNC's unanimous October 5, 2025 directive.

This Point of Order is limited to the procedural correction requested above. The broader pattern of conduct documented herein — including the five-and-a-half-month delay on a unanimous directive, the expansion of the litigation committee's scope for McArdle litigation hours after the full LNC declined to fund it, the raiding of the trademark budget line, and the Chair's ruling that now voids the action the LNC directed — is noted for the record and may be addressed through separate proceedings as appropriate under PM §1.07(4)(C)–(G). 

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 2:25:01 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

Mr. Chadderdon,

While I did read the entirety of your reply, brevity is appreciated. When using AI models, it is important to ask the model to be concise.

With that said, the Chair already gave a ruling. If you disagree with that ruling, the body may appeal.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 9:26:42 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:29:02 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

Mr. Chair,

This is not an appeal of your prior ruling. It is a new Point of Order.

Your ruling of March 19 stated that it was "limited to the budgetary and procedural issues presented." This Point of Order is not about the actions of the Executive Committee that were subject to my first Point of Order, nor about the budget authorization violations those actions entailed. These are novel, procedurally distinct issues induced by the Chair's own ruling:

• You evaluated the Fielder action independently but did not apply the same framework to the Fresh IP action. This inconsistency did not exist until your ruling created it.
• You voided an action that satisfied both requirements of PM §1.06(2) on its own merits without ever analyzing it independently.
• You did not address the fact that the McArdle litigation raided the trademark action's dedicated budget line — and that it was the McArdle action, which the full LNC declined to fund, that caused the aggregate breach your ruling attributes to both.
• You did not reconcile your ruling with the LNC's unanimous October 5 directive, which your five-and-a-half-month delay and subsequent ruling have now effectively nullified.

New questions require a new ruling — not an appeal of the old one. Dismissing a Point of Order without addressing its substance is not a ruling. Under RONR 12th ed. §23:6(a) and (b), this must be ruled upon promptly.

As stated in the Point of Order before the Chair: the Chair cannot create the conditions that make an action procedurally deficient and then void it for being procedurally deficient. Nor can the Chair issue an incomplete ruling and then decline to address the issues it failed to consider on the basis that a ruling has already been given.

As for the suggestion that AI was used in preparing this submission — the Chair may wish to employ whatever tools are available to him to ensure the substance of a Point of Order is fully understood before declining to rule on it. The length of the submission reflects the number of issues the Chair's prior ruling failed to address.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 10:25:05 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:27:32 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

Mr. Chadderdon,

The Chair has already ruled on the question presented.

To the extent you contend the Chair treated the Gary Fielder and Fresh IP matters inconsistently, that is incorrect. The distinction is straightforward: the Chair evaluated whether each action could proceed within existing lawful budget authority.

The Gary Fielder matter could do so. The Fresh IP matter could not.

Accordingly, the Chair did not apply different standards to different matters. The same standard was applied to each: actions that fit within existing budget authority were sustained, and actions requiring authority beyond what the Executive Committee could lawfully obligate were ruled out of order.

If you disagree with that ruling, the remedy is appeal or moving the motion for Fresh IP with the included increase to budget line “legal-proactive” within the same motion, or prior to.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 11:29:02 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 5:53:13 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

Mr. Chair,

If each action was evaluated independently as you now state, what specific budget authority did the Fresh IP retainer exceed? The $20,000 retainer was payable from the $20,000 earmarked in line 8210-20, and the $10,000 increase is within the 1% cap of $13,505.

A specific answer is requested.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:27 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 6:43:17 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Point of Order — Chair's Ruling on New Mexico Trademark Litigation

Mr. Chadderdon,

The ExCom exceeded its authority by approving the motion for Fresh IP while there was a -$2,500 deficit on that line item (needed $20k to approve). 

Moving the increase later does not cure the original deficiency as the order of operations should have been reversed. 

Likewise, because the increases were appurtenant to the motions ruled out of order, they too are out of order as the order of operations was not proper.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Chairman, LNC

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:53:13 PM